Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences  (Read 58481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1648
  • Reputation: +641/-128
  • Gender: Male
Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2025, 04:47:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Really means that much to you, huh?

    If you can reconcile what Trent teaches with St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, by all means go ahead. I am willing to learn

    So glad you are ready to learn.

    Baptism of Desire occurs either by an explicit desire to receive the Sacrament (as in a Catechumen) or an implicit desire contained in a resolve to fulfill God’s will (as in the Invincibly Ignorant).

    Once this desire is formed—provided it is animated by Perfect Charity (love of God above all things) and Perfect Contrition—the soul is justified by God's Grace immediately, even before the physical reception of the Sacrament.

    This is exactly analogous to the doctrine of Perfect Contrition, where a penitent is absolved of sin before entering the confessional, precisely because their contrition includes the resolve to receive the Sacrament as soon as possible."



    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #31 on: December 16, 2025, 05:10:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Really means that much to you, huh?

    If you can reconcile what Trent teaches with St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD, by all means go ahead. I am willing to learn

    You can't reconcile it? Which means you think it doubts previously defined solemn dogma? Please answer what you think.


    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #32 on: December 16, 2025, 05:11:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church promotes St. Paul's infallible teaching to the Ephesians: "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism."

    The only ones who promote a BOD are already baptized. If anyone can post proof of an unbaptized person promoting it, please post it.

    The same Church promotes what St. Paul said AND baptism of desire. The divine Church promotes both. Why don't you accept both?

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #33 on: December 16, 2025, 05:14:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So glad you are ready to learn.

    Baptism of Desire occurs either by an explicit desire to receive the Sacrament (as in a Catechumen) or an implicit desire contained in a resolve to fulfill God’s will (as in the Invincibly Ignorant).

    Once this desire is formed—provided it is animated by Perfect Charity (love of God above all things) and Perfect Contrition—the soul is justified by God's Grace immediately, even before the physical reception of the Sacrament.

    This is exactly analogous to the doctrine of Perfect Contrition, where a penitent is absolved of sin before entering the confessional, precisely because their contrition includes the resolve to receive the Sacrament as soon as possible."

    Well done.

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1430
    • Reputation: +928/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #34 on: December 16, 2025, 05:15:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So glad you are ready to learn.

    Baptism of Desire occurs either by an explicit desire to receive the Sacrament (as in a Catechumen) or an implicit desire contained in a resolve to fulfill God’s will (as in the Invincibly Ignorant).

    Once this desire is formed—provided it is animated by Perfect Charity (love of God above all things) and Perfect Contrition—the soul is justified by God's Grace immediately, even before the physical reception of the Sacrament.

    This is exactly analogous to the doctrine of Perfect Contrition, where a penitent is absolved of sin before entering the confessional, precisely because their contrition includes the resolve to receive the Sacrament as soon as possible."
    Thank you, but this is not applicable to what I was referring to: St. Alphonsus' definition (some debt of punishment remains) & what Trent taught regarding those who are "born again", and how one could never be "justified" if he is not "born again"
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1430
    • Reputation: +928/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #35 on: December 16, 2025, 05:18:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You can't reconcile it? Which means you think it doubts previously defined solemn dogma? Please answer what you think.
    Huh? What needs to be reconciled?
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #36 on: December 16, 2025, 05:21:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Huh? What needs to be reconciled?

    Please, just speak, "Yea, yea, neah, neah" as the Scripture tells us. Do you think St. Alphonsus called into doubt with his wording a previously declared solemn dogma?

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1430
    • Reputation: +928/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #37 on: December 16, 2025, 05:30:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please, just speak, "Yea, yea, neah, neah" as the Scripture tells us. Do you think St. Alphonsus called into doubt with his wording a previously declared solemn dogma?
    I never feel compelled to answer ridiculous questions 

    You're in the "Feeneyite Ghetto". You do know what we "Feeneyites" believe, right?

    My invitation stands :incense:
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #38 on: December 16, 2025, 05:37:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I never feel compelled to answer ridiculous questions

    You're in the "Feeneyite Ghetto". You do know what we "Feeneyites" believe, right?

    My invitation stands :incense:

    Feeneyism is a mystery to me. Please answer my question so I know solidly what I am dealing with. 

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1648
    • Reputation: +641/-128
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #39 on: December 16, 2025, 05:42:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you, but this is not applicable to what I was referring to: St. Alphonsus' definition (some debt of punishment remains) & what Trent taught regarding those who are "born again", and how one could never be "justified" if he is not "born again"

    The effect of Justification is described in the Trent Decree on Justification as happening at two points:

    Here is the explanation by Gemini AI:

    The Council of Trent draws a sharp distinction between the effects of Initial Justification (associated with Baptism) and Restoration (associated with Penance/Confession).

    The crucial difference lies indeed in the Temporal Debt (Temporal Punishment).

    Here is the breakdown based on the Council of Trent, Session VI.

    1. Initial Justification (The First Plank)

    This refers to the transition from being a child of Adam to a child of God.

    The Means: The Sacrament of Baptism (or the votum for it animated by Perfect Charity).


    The Effect (Sacramental): It removes Original SinActual Sin, and All Temporal Punishment.
    • If a person dies immediately after Baptism, they go straight to Heaven; there is no Purgatory.

    The Effect (Baptism of Desire): It removes Original and Actual Sin (Guilt).
    • Nuance: Theologians (like St. Thomas Aquinas) teach that while the Sacrament removes all temporal debt automatically (ex opere operato), the Desire removes temporal debt in proportion to the intensity of the contrition/charity. It is possible for some temporal debt to remain if the act of charity wasn't sufficiently intense.


    2. Subsequent Justification (The Second Plank)

    This refers to the restoration of a believer who has fallen into mortal sin after Baptism. Trent calls this "The Second Plank after Shipwreck."



    The Means: The Sacrament of Penance (Confession) or Perfect Contrition (with the intent to confess).
    • The Effect: It removes Eternal Punishment (Hell) and restores Sanctifying Grace.
    • The Limitation: It does NOT necessarily remove all Temporal Punishment.

      • This is why the Church prescribes Penance (Satisfaction) and why Purgatory exists. The guilt is gone, but the "mess" left behind (the disorder of the soul and the debt of justice) must still be paid.


    Magisterial Citation (The Proof)

    The Council of Trent explicitly addresses your point in Session VI, Chapter 14 ("On the Fallen and their Restoration"):


    Quote
    "Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins... but also the sacramental confession of the said sins... and satisfaction also...
    For we are not to believe that the guilt is remitted in such wise as that the whole penalty of eternal punishment is [always] blotted out, as happens in baptism."

    Summary Table


    FeatureInitial Justification (Baptism)Restoration (Penance/Second Plank)
    State of SoulCleansed of Original Sin.Restored from Personal Mortal Sin.
    Eternal GuiltRemitted.Remitted.
    Temporal DebtRemitted entirely (In Baptism).Remains (Requiring Satisfaction/Purgatory).
    AnalogyA complete cancellation of all debt and a new birth.A healing of a wound that leaves a scar requiring therapy.

    So, the "second desire" (Restoration/Perfect Contrition after falling) remits the guilt of mortal sin but generally leaves the Temporal Debt to be satisfied. This validates the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and the necessity of penance.



    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1430
    • Reputation: +928/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #40 on: December 16, 2025, 05:47:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Feeneyism is a mystery to me. Please answer my question so I know solidly what I am dealing with.
    Feel free to browse the ghetto
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1430
    • Reputation: +928/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #41 on: December 16, 2025, 05:50:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The effect of Justification is described in the Trent Decree on Justification as happening at two points:

    Here is the explanation by Gemini AI:

    The Council of Trent draws a sharp distinction between the effects of Initial Justification (associated with Baptism) and Restoration (associated with Penance/Confession).

    The crucial difference lies indeed in the Temporal Debt (Temporal Punishment).

    Here is the breakdown based on the Council of Trent, Session VI.

    1. Initial Justification (The First Plank)

    This refers to the transition from being a child of Adam to a child of God.

    The Means: The Sacrament of Baptism (or the votum for it animated by Perfect Charity).


    The Effect (Sacramental): It removes Original Sin, Actual Sin, and All Temporal Punishment.
    • If a person dies immediately after Baptism, they go straight to Heaven; there is no Purgatory.

    The Effect (Baptism of Desire): It removes Original and Actual Sin (Guilt).
    • Nuance: Theologians (like St. Thomas Aquinas) teach that while the Sacrament removes all temporal debt automatically (ex opere operato), the Desire removes temporal debt in proportion to the intensity of the contrition/charity. It is possible for some temporal debt to remain if the act of charity wasn't sufficiently intense.


    2. Subsequent Justification (The Second Plank)

    This refers to the restoration of a believer who has fallen into mortal sin after Baptism. Trent calls this "The Second Plank after Shipwreck."



    The Means: The Sacrament of Penance (Confession) or Perfect Contrition (with the intent to confess).
    • The Effect: It removes Eternal Punishment (Hell) and restores Sanctifying Grace.
    • The Limitation: It does NOT necessarily remove all Temporal Punishment.

      • This is why the Church prescribes Penance (Satisfaction) and why Purgatory exists. The guilt is gone, but the "mess" left behind (the disorder of the soul and the debt of justice) must still be paid.


    Magisterial Citation (The Proof)

    The Council of Trent explicitly addresses your point in Session VI, Chapter 14 ("On the Fallen and their Restoration"):


    Summary Table


    FeatureInitial Justification (Baptism)Restoration (Penance/Second Plank)
    State of SoulCleansed of Original Sin.Restored from Personal Mortal Sin.
    Eternal GuiltRemitted.Remitted.
    Temporal DebtRemitted entirely (In Baptism).Remains (Requiring Satisfaction/Purgatory).
    AnalogyA complete cancellation of all debt and a new birth.A healing of a wound that leaves a scar requiring therapy.

    So, the "second desire" (Restoration/Perfect Contrition after falling) remits the guilt of mortal sin but generally leaves the Temporal Debt to be satisfied. This validates the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and the necessity of penance.


    I am referring specifically to Trent's description of the man "born again", what Trent taught happens if one is not "born again' (never could be "justified"), and how St. Alphonsus' definition of BOD fits in with it
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #42 on: December 16, 2025, 05:53:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Feel free to browse the ghetto

    Tell me what is ridiculous about my question.

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1430
    • Reputation: +928/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #43 on: December 16, 2025, 05:57:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Tell me what is ridiculous about my question.
    Take a walk through the Ghetto and you'll find out soon enough!
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Freind

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 470
    • Reputation: +56/-101
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Claiming something is not "de fide" still has hellish consequences
    « Reply #44 on: December 16, 2025, 05:59:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Take a walk through the Ghetto and you'll find out soon enough!

    I'm not going to spend all that time. Just tell me why my question is "ridiculous".