Dimond Brothers have a recent video on the subject. Let's discuss the topic here examining some of their points. In another thread, we saw what the Catholic Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, after the Council of Trent, said that Trent had taught on the subject - unanimously all Catechisms, including the Roman Catechism, all Doctors, including St. Alphonsus and St. Robert, all Popes who approved these Doctors' teachings, all Saints after the Council, all Theologians writing after the Council on the subject taught Baptism of Desire, indicating that Trent had at least taught it in passing. Here, let's look at what the EM at Trent itself dogmatically declared.
There are Three Proofs that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, from Session VI, Session VII and Session XIV respectively.
First Proof: From Session VI http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htmTrent taught: "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 (aut eius voto)" (Sess. VI, Cap. IV).
Now, in the first place, the usage of the word voto itself signifies Trent intends to teach Baptism of Desire. Nobody says, nor do we read anywhere in Trent "without the Priesthood, or without the desire thereof, no one can offer the Mass". Nor do we read anything about desire of Confirmation/Matrimony/Unction, but only about Confession, namely Perfect Contrition, and the Eucharist, namely Spiritual Communion. In like manner, the usage of voto here, especially where Trent could have just said "without the laver of regeneration" and left it at that, but specifically chose to add "or the desire thereof", provides the first indication Trent intended to teach Baptism of Desire.
Second Proof: From Session VIhttp://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htmTrent taught: "without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification" is condemned. (Sess. VII, Can. IV)In the second place, the analogy with the Sacrament of Penance - which no doubt confers the Grace of Justification, even when received in voto, as even the Dimonds admit - also shows that the Grace of Justification can be obtained through the Desire of Baptism. For Trent would say, as we will see below, "without them, or without the desire thereof", no one obtains justification. But the Dimonds admit this means that, with the desire of Penance, the grace of justification can be obtained. But "aut eorum voto" here is in the plural. Therefore, there are two Sacraments at least, the desire of which obtains the grace of justification. Those two can only be Baptism and Penance.
Third Proof: From Session XIV http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htmTrent taught: "And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation ; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated." (Sess. XIV, Cap. II)Thirdly, Trent teaches that Penance is necessary for salvation (for those fallen after Baptism) as Baptism itself is necessary for all. But Penance is necessary, as everyone admits, in re or in voto. Hence, it follows, as the Doctors correctly conclude, Baptism itself is also necessary in re or in voto, for salvation, just as Penance is.
Now, to respond to the
Objections: (1) The Dimonds claim "without Baptism, or its desire, justification cannot be obtained", does not mean "with Baptism, or its desire, justification can be obtained". They give an example from the Council itself, "Without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Spirit, man cannot believe and love as He ought".
(2) Next, they say, that if someone says, for e.g. "A marriage cannot take place without a bride or a groom", this means both the bride and the groom should be present, and not just one of them, either/or.
(3) Finally, they object to the translation found in Denzinger "justification cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or its desire". They say that except through implies either one suffices.
To the
first objection: this objection seems not to prove its point, but the opposite. Because, it is true to say, "With the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Spirit, man can believe and love as He ought". So here we have "cannot ... without" reducing to "can ... with".
The
second objection gives an incorrect analogy. It should be: "a marriage cannot take place without a bride AND a groom". Only from this correct statement does it truly follow that both should be present. But Trent didn't say "AND". It could have if required, but it didn't. Trent's wording is very significant, in showing that not both one and the other are necessary, but either one can suffice.
To the
third objection, while without is probably a strict translation of "sine", except through is also a defensible rendering, and occurs in other sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia. But more importantly, if "cannot ... except through" indicates "can ... through", as they concede, then "cannot ... without" also does. "cannot ... except through" only indicates it CAN happen ONLY by these two means, and "cannot ... without", in this context, also means exactly the same thing: Only Baptism or its desire can justify.
Let's take three quick counter-examples.
Example One: "My thirst cannot be quenched without water, or milk". But my thirst can be quenched by water [i.e. Baptism]. And therefore, it correctly seems to follow my thirst can be quenched by milk also. In this context, if either is necessary, but at least one is sufficient, then both are sufficient. Baptism or its desire is necessary. But Baptism is sufficient. Thus the desire is also sufficient. Otherwise, if I'm wrong here, what is wrong with the "water or milk" example?
Example Two: "My health cannot be restored without (or except through) food or medicine". But my health can be restored through food. Does it not seem to follow that my health can thus be restored through medicine also? That seems to be the implication here.
Example Three: "I cannot live without bread or rice". The obvious implication is that I can live with bread, and therefore with rice too. we have to recall here that we independently know Baptism can confer justification. So we can deduce that the desire also can.
Now, if anyone disagrees with me on these examples, please give other examples of your own to prove the point, and also explain where and why I'm wrong if I am. I've also heard the example "we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball" but there also it seems to be "AND" that is necessary. Why? Because a bat alone does not suffice to play baseball. So it should be said AND not or.
And again the example of the Sacrament of Penance shows us what Trent meant: Penance or its desire suffices for justification, as we all know, and the Dimonds concede. Therefore, the same follows for Baptism: Baptism or its desire suffices for justification as well.
Finally, as we'll see later, and as the Dimonds themselves concede, Pope St. Pius V taught Baptism of Desire in the Roman Catechism. It would be unthinkably absurd for a Pope to forget what the Council he presided over had just taught and instead teach the opposite!
Not to mention that, according to the Dimondite idea, Pope St. Pius V would then be a heretic and have lost his office right there! Clearly a
reductio ad absurdum of the Dimonds' argument here. If the Dimonds are to be consistent, let them claim that the Papal Vacancy thus began after Trent some 500 years ago.
We'll also look at two condemnations of Baius from the same Saintly Pontiff. They indicate charity or contrition justifies both after and before Baptism, i.e. that it avails for the remission of sins in both catechumens and penitents, exactly as I contend Trent taught here.
God Bless.
Topic: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire? (Read 2736 times)