Author Topic: CI BODers Think in a Vacuum (Read 15238 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #195 on:** March 11, 2014, 02:08:34 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Sorry Bowler, you are wrong on all counts. And your view is at least proximate to heresy.

How do you explain the example of Cornelius in Scripture, where he clearly receives the Holy Ghost and is justified (which according to you is impossible) before being baptized in water?

Quote
Acts 10:47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Haydock Commentary: Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament.

It is evident from the passage and the commentary that one can receive justification while yet a catechumen. As the commentary goes on to say, this in no way derogates from the necessity of the sacrament, because a truly just man will hasten to receive the actual sacrament as soon as possible.

Therefore the Dimondite view is probably heretical, and it is not true that one cannot be "born again in desire" through love of God and Christ and contrition.

Also, if you don't know that contrition by its nature remits the eternal punishment entirely but the temporal punishment only in part and in proportion to the intensity with which Almighty God is loved, then I don't know what to say. This is universally known, and it is also indicated in Trent.

Trent says,

Quote
the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season ... 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

The Catechism of Trent says

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Also, you missed the point, it goes like this

1. Sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation as Baptism itself is necessary (CoT, see above)
2. Sacrament of penace is necessary in fact or in desire (Trent, as admitted by you as well)
3. Therfore, baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire.

You need to show one of the above premises false, with proof from Trent.

Quote from: Bowler, citing the Dimonds
BOD advocates say that people who have fallen into mortal sin can be justified and saved without the Sacrament of Penance by perfect contrition, and therefore people can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since Trent says that the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance for those in mortal sin is the same as the necessity of Baptism.

Yes, exactly. The Dimonds at least understand the opposing position correctly, even if they cannot answer it. That's what we say, and nothing in the portion preceding or proceeding this part in your excerpt above actually refutes this point.

It is clear that the necessity is the same in both cases (penance and baptism) and therefore the Dimonds are wrong, both baptism and penance are necessary in fact or in desire. And you who unwittingly follow them, reading and being swayed by their vain sophistry are in real and grave danger of falling into heresy.

Good post, Nishant!

Nishant · « **Reply #196 on:** March 12, 2014, 09:33:55 AM »

Heh. So that's it, is it? After 40 pages of our being treated to endless gloating from you, Bowler, that your questions cannot be answered, you now not only neglect to respond to the examples that show your point false, but as is your wont, instead copy and paste the same material on a zillion other threads citing only your own self in prior posts.

Quote from: St. Augustine

For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit

Quote from: St. Thomas

before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit

In the past, in your saner moments, you have yourself admitted that the Dimonds are wrong on this point, and that justification at least is clearly possible by baptism of desire. Now, you rely on an argument from them that you yourself don't understand fully to try and prove the contrary. And when that is critiqued, you reply only with silence.

Talk about an "end run" from you.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #197 on:** March 12, 2014, 10:05:09 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: St. Augustine
For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit

Quote from: St. Thomas
before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit

Trent teaches that it is the activity of the Holy Spirit that inspires the proper dispositions required to receive the Sacrament of Baptism (ergo the Cornelius example). God manifested the activity of the Holy Spirit in Cornelius to draw St. Peter out of the Judaizing mentality. So the presence of the Holy Spirit does not by itself prove justification or the presence of SANCTIFYING grace but could just as well show the prevenient graces leading a soul to Baptism. Since St. Peter saw the Holy Spirit giving Cornelius the graces that would lead him to Baptism, he concluded that Baptism should not be withheld from him on the grounds of his not having first observed various Judaizing rituals. In your reading of this, the Sacrament of Baptism would have been entirely superfluous, an empty ritual; it would not have effected the rebirth or regeneration, since that had (according to you) already taken place.

Trent teaches that both the proper dispositions AND Sacramental Baptism are required for justification.

Finally, even if you argue (without evidence) that Cornelius would be a case of justification by BoD, this again is a case of someone who accepted the truth of the Catholic faith and not the EENS-denying heretical version of BoD that all of you profess and promote.

In the end, there was no BoD at work in Cornelius, since Cornelius was actually baptized. BoDers are in contradiction on the subject; many of them say that BoD actually only kicks in at the moment of death when the reception of Sacramental Baptism would have become "impossible".

Nishant · « **Reply #198 on:** March 12, 2014, 11:52:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Trent teaches that it is the activity of the Holy Spirit that inspires the proper dispositions required to receive the Sacrament of Baptism (ergo the Cornelius example). God manifested the activity of the Holy Spirit in Cornelius to draw St. Peter out of the Judaizing mentality. So the presence of the Holy Spirit does not by itself prove justification or the presence of SANCTIFYING grace but could just as well show the prevenient graces leading a soul to Baptism.

Unfortunately, there is no doubt that the passage in question is not talking merely about prevenient grace but rather shows us beyond reasonable doubt that Cornelius received sanctifying grace and was indwelt by the Holy Ghost, at least at that point when the Prince of the Apostles said that Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost just as the baptized disciples did.

St. Thomas as is his wont advances another quite profound proof that Cornelius was justified and had a living faith and charity by this point, namely that his works were said to please God, which is impossible (cf. Heb 11:6) without faith. To wit, the Angelic Doctor concludes, "With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith."

St. Peter himself says, "And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him" which again clearly presupposes the accomplished reality of justification, and St. Luke speaks in the same manner in recording the words of the Angel.

Quote

In your reading of this, the Sacrament of Baptism would have been entirely superfluous, an empty ritual; it would not have effected the rebirth or regeneration, since that had (according to you) already taken place.

Not at all. Firstly, as we have seen, the sacrament of baptism imprints the baptismal character, and moreover, effects the plenary remission of temporal punishment. This is by no stretch of the imagination superfluous.

Secondly, you admit that the sacrament of penance can be received in desire. Does this render the actual sacrament, when it becomes possible to receive it, superfluous?

No, because certain superabundant graces (including that attrition suffices, and that special light to know and strength to avoid our sins are granted in the confessional) are reserved to the reception of the actual sacrament. It is the same for spiritual communion in relation to the Holy Eucharist. Moreover, as we have seen, an individual who is truly contrite, or is truly inflamed with love of God will be the first to hasten to receive the actual sacrament when he can.

Quote

Trent teaches that both the proper dispositions AND Sacramental Baptism are required for justification.

Leaving aside the passage on baptism which you read in the above flawed way, Trent teaches that the necessity of the sacrament of penance is the same as that of baptism. But penance as even you admit is necessary in fact or in desire. Therefore by this passage in Trent, so is baptism.

By the way, Trent uses the same word voto when it discourses on baptism, penance and the Eucharist. There is no real ground for saying in two cases it means one thing (reception of sacramental effect) and in the third it means another (i.e. a mere disposition).

MyrnaM · « **Reply #199 on:** March 12, 2014, 12:20:07 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: St. Augustine
For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit

Quote from: St. Thomas
before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit

Trent teaches that it is the activity of the Holy Spirit that inspires the proper dispositions required to receive the Sacrament of Baptism (ergo the Cornelius example). God manifested the activity of the Holy Spirit in Cornelius to draw St. Peter out of the Judaizing mentality. So the presence of the Holy Spirit does not by itself prove justification or the presence of SANCTIFYING grace but could just as well show the prevenient graces leading a soul to Baptism. Since St. Peter saw the Holy Spirit giving Cornelius the graces that would lead him to Baptism, he concluded that Baptism should not be withheld from him on the grounds of his not having first observed various Judaizing rituals. In your reading of this, the Sacrament of Baptism would have been entirely superfluous, an empty ritual; it would not have effected the rebirth or regeneration, since that had (according to you) already taken place.

Trent teaches that both the proper dispositions AND Sacramental Baptism are required for justification.

Finally, even if you argue (without evidence) that Cornelius would be a case of justification by BoD, this again is a case of someone who accepted the truth of the Catholic faith and not the EENS-denying heretical version of BoD that all of you profess and promote.

In the end, there was no BoD at work in Cornelius, since Cornelius was actually baptized. BoDers are in contradiction on the subject; many of them say that BoD actually only kicks in at the moment of death when the reception of Sacramental Baptism would have become "impossible".

In simpler words Ladislaus, Nishant, I believe, point is: The soul is filled with the Holy Ghost if properly disposed prior to water Baptism, and if death occurs before the Sacrament, the Holy Ghost does NOT say, oh! I am out of here, this guy isn't water Baptized yet. The Holy Ghost does not flee, and I am sure you know that, therefore, how can a soul who is filled with the Holy Ghost end up in Hell?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #200 on:** March 12, 2014, 12:37:05 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Unfortunately, there is no doubt that the passage in question is not talking merely about prevenient grace but rather shows us beyond reasonable doubt that Cornelius received sanctifying grace and was indwelt by the Holy Ghost, at least at that point when the Prince of the Apostles said that Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost just as the baptized disciples did.

Nonsense. There's plenty of doubt. There's only "no doubt" to you because you see what you want to see. You want to see in this a justification for BoD, so there's "no doubt" for you.

Quote

To wit, the Angelic Doctor concludes, "With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith."

That's to my point exactly. Observe, o heretical EENS-denying BoDers, as St. Thomas says, that "he was not an unbeliever", unlike said "Hindu in Tibet".

Quote

Not at all. Firstly, as we have seen, the sacrament of baptism imprints the baptismal character, and moreover, effects the plenary remission of temporal punishment. This is by no stretch of the imagination superfluous.

With the "character" being completely useless in your view of things, and the notion that pre-Baptism justification removes Original Sin but leaves temporal punishment is just fabricated nonsense.

Quote

Secondly, you admit that the sacrament of penance can be received in desire. Does this render the actual sacrament, when it becomes possible to receive it, superfluous?

As I've explained to you a bzillion times, Baptism and Confession are completely different sacraments and do not work the same way.

Nishant · « **Reply #201 on:** March 12, 2014, 01:58:44 PM »

I agree, Myrna. Ladislaus is simply mistaken.

Quote

Nonsense. There's plenty of doubt.

Really. Cite me a single approved commentary, then, on this passage, that agrees with your warped reading of it. Surely that should not be so difficult.

But if not, forget the commentaries, forget St. Augustine, the passage itself in its plain sense is entirely against you.

St. Peter, read carefully, says in every nation he who "fears God and works justice" is acceptable to Him, speaking of Cornelius in particular. This is the basis on which St. Thomas infers that Cornelius was already justified and not an unbeliever at this point, because an unbeliever cannot be said to "work justice".

Against this, you have no alternate exegesis to offer, but only emotion.

Quote

That's to my point exactly

Is it really? St. Thomas deduces from the passage that Cornelius was justified at this point and had infused supernatural faith, before the reception of the baptismal character. That is the reason why his works were acceptable to and could please God. But according to you, this is an absolute impossibility.

So, who is right? You, or St. Thomas and St. Peter?

Quote

With the "character" being completely useless in your view of things

Who said it was? Discussing this will take us somewhat indepth into sacramental theology, I will go there if you want, but it is unnecessary.

The character does usually dispose one to the reception of regeneration, but it is not so intrinsically necessary to it that one cannot receive regeneration without it. Otherwise, tell me, how were the just of the Old Testament ever sanctified?

As far as the sacraments, grace and character, are concerned, this is traditional Thomistic theology, nothing less, nothing more. It is you who are at odds against it, who have a novel idea concerning them.

Quote

and the notion that pre-Baptism justification removes Original Sin but leaves temporal punishment is just fabricated nonsense.

This itself is fabricated nonsense. Trent says contrition remits eternal punishment entirely and temporal punishment only in part. This should be self-evident to all, and should not require a citation. And this fact is sufficient to establish the point. Nevertheless, even in this, there are Biblical examples and patristic principles.

Baptism of desire is nothing other than "perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things" and therefore has the same effect, remission of temporal punishment in proportion to the intensity with which God or Christ is loved. Therefore, because contrition has this effect, those who die justified by baptism of desire, as St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and others also teach, will go to purgatory.

bowler · « **Reply #202 on:** March 12, 2014, 02:32:27 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Heh. So that's it, is it? After 40 pages of our being treated to endless gloating from you, Bowler, that your questions cannot be answered, you now not only neglect to respond to the examples that show your point false, but as is your wont, instead copy and paste the same material on a zillion other threads citing only your own self in prior posts.

Quote from: St. Augustine
For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit

Quote from: St. Thomas
before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit

In the past, in your saner moments, you have yourself admitted that the Dimonds are wrong on this point, and that justification at least is clearly possible by baptism of desire. Now, you rely on an argument from them that you yourself don't understand fully to try and prove the contrary. And when that is critiqued, you reply only with silence.

Talk about an "end run" from you.

Your irrelevant response is hidden somewhere back there behind all of the "junk mail" posted in this thread. I couldn't even find it. Maybe I'm going to take all of your postings and my response and start another thread, maybe not. 50 something pages without any response but ad-hominems, end runs, and subject changes is enough indication to me that you BODers don't have the wherewithal to discuss any details like explicit baptism of desire. What's the point anyways, considering that 100% of BODers don't believe that in explicit desire for baptism is necessary for salvation?

Nishant · « **Reply #203 on:** March 12, 2014, 02:54:45 PM »

Quote

I couldn't even find it.

Why should this even surprise me, when it is evident you've created so many different threads that even you don't remember what you asked where.

As usual, I have to do what you neglect to. This is what you asked,

Quote

1) BODers say that a person can be saved without any sacraments at all.

2) The BODer says that a person can be justified without being born again, and moreover that a justified person does not go straight to heaven.

These were the two questions asked, and they were answered for what they were. Now instead it is you who do not have the "wherewithal" to respond. Instead, you change the subject again, with another of your end runs, to wanting now to discuss explicit baptism of desire. This is because you lack the ability, or at least the willingness, to explore any of these questions in depth, even the ones you have yourself asked. You don't understand what is the connection between eternal and temporal punishment, for one thing, and that is wildly evident in your post.

You do everything that you accuse your opponents of, and worse.

I've answered you on explicit baptism of desire before, I'll take that up, maybe later, in yet another of the many threads you have currently bumped on the subject.

bowler · « **Reply #204 on:** March 12, 2014, 08:49:09 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Heh. So that's it, is it? After 40 pages of our being treated to endless gloating from you, Bowler, that your questions cannot be answered, you now not only neglect to respond to the examples that show your point false, but as is your wont, instead copy and paste the same material on a zillion other threads citing only your own self in prior posts.
Quote from: St. Augustine
For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit

Quote from: St. Thomas
before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit

In the past, in your saner moments, you have yourself admitted that the Dimonds are wrong on this point, and that justification at least is clearly possible by baptism of desire. Now, you rely on an argument from them that you yourself don't understand fully to try and prove the contrary. And when that is critiqued, you reply only with silence.

Talk about an "end run" from you.

WOW! That's it? I thought there was more. You BODers teach that all the dogmas on EENS and baptism must not be read as they are written (see
"Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written" http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Quotes-that-BODers-Say-Must-Not-be-Understood-as-Written), and yet whatever analogy you concoct is a dogma that must be understood as you say. Now you answer me with self interpretation of scripture.

1) BODers say Cornelius is an example of BOD. Yet Cornelius was baptized, and is actually an example of what St. Augustine teaches in my signature quote : “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.

2) We see in the Sacred Scriptures the activity of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius ... with absolutely no proof whatsoever that this entailed the so-called Baptism of Desire. You're simply reading into it what you want to read into it.

You've been told this countless times by me and others, the fact that you keep humiliating yourself just shows what little evidence you have for your belief.

My evidence in this thread is all direct dogmatic decrees that are clear. You can't quote ONE dogmatic decree that clearly teaches what you believe, so you revert to self interpretation of scripture, analogies, Frankenstein graftings of different theologians opinions. whatever.

bowler · « **Reply #205 on:** March 12, 2014, 08:54:21 PM »

Quote

BODers on CI never confront the implications of their "evidence", the details. In order to believe what they believe one has to interpret all the clear direct revelations of God (dogmas), NOT as they are written (see CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"). One has to interpret each and every one NOT as they are written, one by one. But they don't see that. They never answer any inconsistencies, they just keep quiet about it, or do end runs to avoid any discussion.

Here's an example:

1)

Quote

BODer Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments. The theologians … call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of baptism, the new birth… yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”

Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, all the BODers agree on this.

Trent says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. It also says that not all are necessary for every individual, therefore, at least one is necessary for salvation, that one sacrament can only be the sacrament of baptism (the the gateway to the spiritual life- Florence) , since that's exactly what the two Trent Canons on the sacrament of baptism say.

Yet BODers say that a person can be saved without any sacraments at all.

Quote

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, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

2) The BODers teach that baptism of desire does not remit the full liability of the punishment, nor imprint the character of the sacrament of baptism. They sight St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri for this teaching:

Quote

“Baptism of desire 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[/b....(St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)

Yet, the Councils of Florence and Trent teach that the sacrament of baptism, to be born again, (John 3:5 "unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, enter into the kingdom of heaven")
remits the full liability of the punishment. a person that is born again goes straight to heaven. Yet baptism of desire is not a sacrament nor does it send one straight to heaven. So baptism of desire is not being born again.

Trent and Florence clearly teach John 3:5 literally " unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, enter into the kingdom of heaven. The BODer says that a person who is not born again can enter heaven!

Quote

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 sin, original and actual, also of every punishment which is due to the sin itself. Therefore, no satisfaction must be enjoined for past sins upon those who immediately attain to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”

Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, : “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; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.”