Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Nishant Xavier on February 25, 2021, 04:54:12 AM

Title: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 25, 2021, 04:54:12 AM

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.  (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/#.YDd1PNxX7IU)

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.htm

Trent 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 VI
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm

Trent 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.htm

Trent 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.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Stubborn on February 25, 2021, 05:02:59 AM

Good heavens man, Trent taught the necessity of the sacraments, that's what the whole, or most, of the Council was all about. BODers flip the whole council on it's head to insist Trent taught the opposite of what it taught, which is the mark of Liberals.

Trent 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)

If justification cannot be obtained without them, then without them justification cannot be obtained, as it is written in John 3:5.
To say they can obtain justification without them is to say justification is obtained by faith alone, which is what a BOD is - which is the prot doctrine Trent clearly condemns in the canon.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 25, 2021, 05:14:54 AM

Baptism of Desire is not faith alone, but faith that works by charity or contrition, as St. Thomas, Fr. Haydock, Trent itself and so many other sources explain. 

I'm sorry, Stubborn, these Doctors, especially those who wrote after Trent, could not have been so badly mistaken on the subject. Those who think they were have to explain why.

St. Robert,De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

  St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "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 ... Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" 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.'" (Note: Unbelievers can see the original book in Latin here (http://www.baptismofdesire.com/alphonse_theologia_moralis_5.pdf). Turn to page 310 in the book (or page 157 of the PDF file).

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Fr. Haydock on Luk 7:47: She was justified by faith that works by charity, and this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 06:31:22 AM

No, Xavier, the Council of Trent did not TEACH Baptism of Desire.

Nowhere does the phrase "Baptism of Desire" appear in Trent.  In fact, nowhere does any definition (usually required of dogmatic, ahem, "definitions") appear.    That would be a first (and an only) in the history of all dogmatic definitions, to throw a word out there but not define what the term actually means.

Trent simply mentions a votum for Baptism as being required for justification, something without which justification cannot happen.

If you read the expression as "either ... or", then you're saying that in adults the laver (Sacrament) can justify without the intention to receive it ... which is actually condemned in one of the Canons of Trent.

If Trent were teaching it, the phrase saltem in voto would have been required, the phrase that was used for Confession.  Confession and Baptism are two completely different Sacraments, as Trent explicitly states, with Baptism being a "character" Sacrament, and those cannot be received in desire.  You cannot have a confirmation of Desire or a Priesthood of Desire.  Can you receive some of the graces of Confirmation through Desire?  Yes, but you cannot receive the Sacrament through Desire.  Confession is completely different.

What I believe happened is that St. Robert and St. Alphonsus imposed the teaching on Confession onto their reading of this phrase, but a closer study reveals that it cannot be what Trent was saying here.  Trent was saying that both the Sacrament and the Desire for it are required for justification.  I'll dig up the Canon which states that that Sacrament does not effect justification without the desire to receive it.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 06:35:25 AM

Xavier, you refuse to engage in any conversation and address any points anyone makes.  You simply keep respamming the same stuff over and over again.

Please demonstrate a Magisterial source in which there's an actual definition of what must be believed about this Baptism of Desire ... not the opinions of Doctors or theologians, but something in the Magisterium.  There's no de fide truth in the history of de fide truths where a term proposed for belief wasn't clearly defined.

Only a minority of Catholic theologians hold that BoD is de fide.  In other words, they DISAGREE with St. Alphonsus.  I thought that wasn't permitted, to disagree with St. Alphonsus.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 25, 2021, 07:00:06 AM

What a false accusation. When I'm involved in a conversation, I patiently engage every objection made to me, even if I've already answered that precise objection 100 times before. You may not agree with me, but I did and I do. I just answered the objection Stubborn made, "To say they can obtain justification without them is to say justification is obtained by faith alone, which is what a BOD is", from two sources, showing that BOD is not justification by faith alone, but faith that works through charity. 

I had just answered that same objection in another thread, and had done so many times. BOD is not faith alone by any means as I showed. If you disagree with me, explain the sources. That BOD-deniers do not do that.

Speaking of not answering points, you did not answer many of the points I made in the OP. Why didn't Trent say "without the Priesthood, or without the desire thereof, the Mass cannot be offered" if "without the desire thereof" has no doctrinal implication here? It is only your opinion that the Grace of "Character Sacraments" cannot be obtained in Desire. Unction is not a Character Sacrament, but Trent says nothing about the desire of it.

I also gave examples you didn't address. I didn't say you couldn't disagree with St. Alphonsus, I said agreeing with St. Alphonsus was safe. What St. Alphonsus taught as de fide is not "objectively heretical" by any means. It may only be Catholic Doctrine (and thus only a mortal sin, but not heresy, to deny), but that's a minor point. It is safe to agree with St. Alphonsus, and I do.

If Trent meant to say "Both the Sacrament AND the Desire for it" were necessary, the Council would have done so. But it did not. Trent also associates the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism and Penance together in the context of the the Grace of Justification.

What next? Magisterial source on BOD? The Roman Catechism, which says Desire and Resolution, along with Contrition and Repentance for past sins, avails to Grace and Justice, so that the danger of being lost is not present. Also Baltimore Catechism which reiterates it.

Also the Condemnations of Michael Baius, in the sense they are understood in the Catholic Encyclopedia, that Love of God or Charity or Contrition avails the remission of sins both after and before Baptism, which is precisely the meaning of the Voto of the Sacraments obtaining the Grace of Justification in the Council of Trent. Trent explains that what it means by the Voto of Penance is Perfect Contrition. By associating the voto of Baptism together with the voto of penance, Trent also implicitly explains BOD is the same thing. If you doubt BOD's definition, you can consult St. Alphonsus' explanation of it.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 07:25:48 AM

You're simply of bad will, Xavier, and half or your arguments are just plain stupid.  Have you even taken a course in Logic yet, because most of your syllogisms are invalid?

As with the sedevacantism issue, you have your points regarding Universal Acceptance addressed over and over again, with citations from theologians, in which the sedevacantists demonstrate that their opinion is quite tenable, and you ignore all of those, but then respam the same material a week or two later as if no one had ever responded.

We're all getting sick of you.  Going forward, I'm going to ignore all threads that you start.  If I have something to say about Baptism of Desire, then I'll start my own thread.

I could go through each of your points above, but a good half of them are, to be quite blunt, simply idiotic.  And I don't have the patience to keep sifting through your stuff looking for a decent argument that's worth my time to address.

And the Dimonds are quite correct, that the phrase ,"without A or B" CAN be interpreted two ways.  They even received confirmation of this from a Latin scholar, that it's true also in Latin, that it COULD be read both ways.  So it's just a question of attempting to discern from context, which of these ways was intended by Trent.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 25, 2021, 07:34:06 AM

You are the one of bad will, denying what the Doctors teach, to follow blind guides like the Dimonds. Do as you will. I don't care. I do care for your soul, but it is up to you in the end. I will pray for you.

I warn people not to embrace harmful errors that could endanger their Faith and ultimately their Soul. You can agree with me or not just as you choose. The point on Universal Acceptance is certain and has convinced many sedevacantists to leave sedevacantism. Read Salza's and Siscoe's book and the testimonies in response to it. 

Now you or others may or may not agree with it, and that is fine. I presume the good faith of those I talk to, and don't say those who disagree with me are of bad will just because they do.

Some people like you can't debate in a decent and dignified manner like a Christian gentleman but always resort to threats or insults or name-calling or slanders when you run out of arguments.

If you follow the Doctors, you are safe and will be saved. If you follow the Dimonds, you may lose your soul, and end up just like them.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 07:36:17 AM

Quote from: XavierSem on February 25, 2021, 07:34:06 AM

You are the one of bad will, denying what the Doctors teach, to follow blind guides like the Dimonds.

So you repeat your lie that I follow the Dimonds even AFTER I have corrected you several times.  You are in fact the liar.  Get lost, you bad-willed jerk.  You keep falsely claiming that I am a follower of the Dimonds even after I've explained the points on which I disagree with them.  You throw this out there as a smear whenever you have one of your tantrums.

I DISAGREE with the Doctors on this point, imbecile.  You keep pretending that they have some Magisterial authority when they often disagree with one another.  MOST theologians disagree with St. Alphonsus, for instance, on wheter BoD is de fide.  Doctors disagree with one another.  We're entitled to disagree on one or another point or position held by any given Doctor.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 07:39:39 AM

All I know is that you're a schismatic, adhering to the SSPX, which is not in communion with the hierarchy, despite not having a single principled justification for why you can't instead adhere to a group like the FSSP.  If I had your theology, I would never think of supporting the SSPX or formally adhering to them.  I might go to one of their Masses when I had no alternative, but that would be s far as I could go in conscience.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 25, 2021, 07:47:23 AM

If you follow the "Sola Trent" error, which the Dimonds invented, then you are following the principle of the Dimonds, whether you believe you are or not, just like if a Protestant follows "Sola Scripture", he is following the principle of Luther, whether he believes he is or not. 

I've answered your "bad-willed lie" (to use your language) about the SSPX 100 times. Pope Francis recognize the SSPX as Catholic. Thus, if you schismatically disagree with him, you are the schismatic. One of the definitions of Schism by St. Thomas is refusing communion with the members of the Church subject to the Pope. Enemies of the SSPX on both left and right forget this point. 

I don't believe the SSPX is "The Church" to the exclusion of everyone else, but I do believe they are part of the Church, just as the Pope said, and as Bishop Fellay explained, the Holy Father also gave them OJ. I am consistent in that belief whether you believe it or not.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Stubborn on February 25, 2021, 07:49:13 AM

Hey Xavier, here is a Lutheran website (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/did-the-council-of-trent-(and-pope-st-pius-v)-teach-baptism-of-desire/?action=post;last_msg=735269) talking about their doctrine of baptism, they sound just like you - do you author articles there?

If not, why not post a few quotes of where they err?

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 07:50:57 AM

Vatican has been quite clear that SSPX is not in full communion with the hierarchy.

Name ONE reason you couldn't in conscience adhere to the FSSP instead.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 25, 2021, 07:58:52 AM

Quote

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.htm (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm)

Trent 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).

Error 1.  The commentary from Trent (or any council) is not infallible.  Only canons are infallible.
Error 2.  Baptism and Penance are separate sacraments.  You cannot explain/infer sacramental theology about baptism from penance.  Each sacrament has it's own special requirements, purposes and gifts.
.

Quote

Second Proof: From Session VI
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm)

Trent 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.

Same errors as above.
Error 1.  The commentary from Trent (or any council) is not infallible.  Only canons are infallible.
Error 2.  Baptism and Penance are separate sacraments.  You cannot explain/infer sacramental theology about baptism from penance.  Each sacrament has it's own special requirements, purposes and gifts.
.

Quote

Third Proof: From Session XIV 
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm)

Trent 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.

Same error as above:
Error 1.  The commentary from Trent (or any council) is not infallible.  Only canons are infallible.
Error 2.  Baptism and Penance are separate sacraments.  You cannot explain/infer sacramental theology about baptism from penance.  Each sacrament has it's own special requirements, purposes and gifts.
.
Now, to respond to the Objections: 

Quote

(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.

This is really the same argument.  The "or"/"and" debate is due to people not understanding the english language and logic.  In this instance, the use of "or" is an abbreviation for the longer idea being conveyed.  If you FULLY write out the sentence, you'll see what I mean:
.
A marriage cannot take place without a bride, or a marriage cannot take place without a groom.
.
If either one is missing, the marriage cannot take place.  If only one is present, the marriage cannot take place.
.
Discussion over.  Logic wins.

Quote

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.

This is just an alternate form of writing the same idea as I explained above.  Both sentences confer the same language, ESPECIALLY when Trent (in another infallible canon) tells us that "desire" for a sacrament is necessary (i.e. again, in historical context, Trent was condemning forced baptisms).

Quote

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.

Garbage theology.  Sacraments are different.
.
Conclusion:  Xavier quotes Trent's COMMENTARY as infallible and having a plain, clear-as-day meaning (when it doesn't).  But when he reads infallible, clear-as-day canons, he interprets them to his own liking (which is heretical).  What a backwards, modernistic, anti-catholic understanding/attitude towards Church councils!

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 08:22:20 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 25, 2021, 07:58:52 AM

Error 2.  Baptism and Penance are separate sacraments.  You cannot explain/infer sacramental theology about baptism from penance.  Each sacrament has it's own special requirements, purposes and gifts.

Just a quick citation from Trent itself to back this up:

Quote

this sacrament [of Penance] is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 08:55:17 AM

Trent actually spent a significant amount of time discussing the relationship between the votum and the Sacrament with regard to Confession.  There's no such explanation with regard to the mention of votum for Baptism.

Based on Trent's own statement Penance is different from Baptism in many respects, arguments about Baptism made from the section on Confession are simply not cogent.

There is once piece that is key, though.

Some people claim that BoD is heretical because Trent taught that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

But Trent also teaches that Confession is "necessary" for justification, and  yet clearly states that the votum or intention/resolve/commitment to receive the Sacrament suffices for justification.  This is why I hold that syllogisms that rest on the term "necessary" for the Sacrament are not valid.  That necessity can still be maintained even if it can be attained through the votum.

Now, this doesn't prove that the votum alone suffices for justification in Baptism, but I think we need to take that "necessary" argument off the table.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Stubborn on February 25, 2021, 09:24:21 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 08:55:17 AM

But Trent also teaches that Confession is "necessary" for justification, and  yet clearly states that the votum or intention/resolve/commitment to receive the Sacrament suffices for justification.

I do not think Trent puts it that way, do they? IOW, Trent does *not* say the votum to confess certainly suffices for justification, they only say that without the votum, justification cannot be obtained. Trent never says definitively that with the votum, justification is certain - they left that conclusion wide open, likely because it is impossible to know without the sacrament, no one, not even the person with the votum knows if/when God accepts or rejects it.
   
Is this not why the Church has always taught even if one achieves perfect contrition for a mortal sin they are still bound to confess that same sin at their next confession? - because without the sacrament, it is impossible for anyone to know for certain if that sin was forgiven via an act of perfect contrition. 


 

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2021, 09:53:42 AM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 25, 2021, 09:24:21 AM

I do not think Trent puts it that way, do they? IOW, Trent does *not* say the votum to confess certainly suffices for justification, they only say that without the votum, justification cannot be obtained. Trent never says definitively that with the votum, justification is certain - they left that conclusion wide open, likely because it is impossible to know without the sacrament, no one, not even the person with the votum knows if/when God accepts or rejects it.
    
Is this not why the Church has always taught even if one achieves perfect contrition for a mortal sin they are still bound to confess that same sin at their next confession? - because without the sacrament, it is impossible for anyone to know for certain if that sin was forgiven via an act of perfect contrition.  

Trent teaches that perfect contrition + the votum for Confession suffices for justification.  It's interesting, though, that Trent's description of this votum is very concrete, that there has to be the intention to go to Confession "in due time."  Which means basically something along the lines of ("I intend to go to Confession when it's scheduled next Sunday."  In other words, you don't have to intend to call a priest immєdιαtely at 3AM to go to Confession.  So this notion of translating votum as "desire" is garbage.  It's more like intention and resolution.  Our word "vow" derives from it.  

There's a huge difference between a simple desire and an intention or resolution.  "I'd like to go to Confession some day." vs. "I'm going to go next Saturday when they're hearing Confession."  One is some kind of vague longing or yearning, and it can even be had by someone who has not concrete intention to Confess.  "I'd really like to go to Confession, but I'm too embarrassed to go."  That can be called a desire.  Contrast that with "I will go to Confession next Saturday."

Enemies of EENS deliberately translate it this way so that any kind of vague yearning, even by those who haven't heard of the Sacrament, can count as "desire".  According to them, even Protestants who openly despise and reject the Sacrament can somehow have a "desire" to receive the Sacrament.  Absolutely ridiculous.  They have no intention of ever Confessing, so no Protestant who rejects the Sacrament can EVER be justified by "perfect contrition".  People like Xavier pretend that "perfect contrition and charity" = "desire" for Baptism.  That is ABSOLUTE HERETICAL GARBAGE.  Trent explicitly taught about Confession that the "perfect contrition" does NOT justify without the intention to Confess.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 25, 2021, 12:01:22 PM

Xavier not responding and starting a new thread in 3...2...1...

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 25, 2021, 01:15:39 PM

No one reads the spam XavierSem writes, so why answer his spam? Just use it as an opportunity to teach "in short".


BOD is never mentioned in Trent. What is mentioned in Trent is votum for the sacrament, and the question, the debate, is whether it means that votum for the sacrament of baptism alone suffices for justification, or the sacrament and votum  are required. The quote ends with "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" , so for someone to say that this place is teaching BOD,  is to directly contradict the "as it is written".

Add to that that Trent says nothing about implicit BOD (which the BODers gratuitously turn into Implicit Faith)

Add to that that Trent does not mention BOD in the section on baptism but instead says again clearly that one must be water baptized

Quote

Quote

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

CANON 2.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

No, BOD is not mentioned in Trent and moreover it is clearly rejected "as it is written"

Add to all the above that the False BODer takes all their "interpretations" for granted, then kills their un-baptized "justified" person "by accident" and asks what happens to him? Then they gratuitously answer themselves that they go to heaven. The whole thing is a Frankenstein composed of quotes from everywhere but Trent.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 25, 2021, 01:28:19 PM

Who is the author of life and death? 

To the believers in BOD & BOB of any kind, one comes to life by chance and dies by chance. To the believer in BOD & BOB, a person learns the faith and gets baptized by his own work. Therefore, to the believer in BOD & BOB, a person could go all the way to the baptismal font by his own volition, and if he was by chance killed before being baptized, he would be saved by his desire. Basically, the BODer gratuitously, without the sacrament of baptism,  justifies a person of any false religion, removes all sin, that is original sin and actual sins, then kills him and asks what happens to him? Then they answer that they go to heaven by BOD.

 I do not believe in BOD & BOB because I believe that God is the author of life and death, and no one by is born by coincidence at the time and the place where they are born (for instance, in pre-Columbian Americas) and no one can even begin to seek the true faith without God's Grace, let alone go all the way up to the baptismal font. And God can allow a person to live 100 years if that is what is required for the baptism.

Whether a person is justified one second before the water of baptism drops on his head or he is not justified till he receives the water and the few words are said (which all takes like 3 seconds time) matters naught, for God can provide his elect with the time (100 years) and the grace to convert and be baptized.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 26, 2021, 03:37:37 AM

Pax, I quoted both the Canons and the "Commentary". Trent was a dogmatic infallible Council. Even the doctrinal explanations ("commentary") are infallible. But I quoted the canons also, to show that the voto of two Sacraments at least are mentioned in the context of Justification. Which two Sacraments can those be?

I quoted this from Trent comparing Baptism and Penance - both are necessary for salvation. "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). So Trent itself compares Baptism and Penance in this context. Of course, there are some differences too.

Here's the Syllogism from this passage: "Penance is necessary for salvation in fact or in desire (Trent). But Penance is necessary as Baptism itself is necessary (also Trent). Therefore, Baptism is also necessary in fact or in desire." How will you refute that?

Now, let's look at the Council of Trent in further detail, to see what, according to the mind and texts of the Council, are the differences and similarities between Baptism and Penance, and what the phrase "aut eius voto" and "aut eorum voto" (in the canons) really mean.

So: "this sacrament [of Penance] is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects" was quoted by Ladislaus. Let's examine the fuller context. It's from Session XIV, Chapter II.

"For the rest, this sacrament is clearly seen to be different from baptism in many respects: for besides that it is very widely different indeed in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it is beyond doubt certain that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, seeing that the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered therein through the gate of baptism. For, what have I, saith the apostle, to do to judge them that are without?(m) It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord has once, by the laver of baptism, made the members of His own body; for such, if they should afterwards have defiled themselves by any crime, He would no longer have them cleansed by a repetition of baptism--that being nowise lawful in the Catholic Church-but be placed as criminals before this tribunal; that, by the sentence of the priests, they might be freed, not once, but as often as, being penitent, they should, from their sins committed, flee thereunto. Furthermore, one is the fruit of baptism, and another that of penance. For, by baptism putting on Christ, (n) we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins : unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. (o) 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." http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm

So, the points are (1) Penance is very different from Baptism in matter and form. (2) the minister of Baptism is not a judge, but the minister of Penance must be i.e. Confession of sins is required in Penance but not required in Baptism. Finally, (3) Penance is a "laborious kind of Baptism" according to the holy Fathers because, in order to return to Baptismal innocence, beside confession "many tears and great labours on our part" are necessary. Lastly, (4) Penance is necessary for salvation as Baptism itself is necessary. 

Now, let me quote from Session VI, Chapter XIV establishing that the Desire of Penance obtains the remission of sin.

"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, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. 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 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; 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, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance."

This again teaches some of the points above, but especially of note here is (1) Penance is a second plank after Baptism when the Grace of Justification is lost. And (2) The guilt or eternal punishment is always remitted either by Penance, or the desire of Penance.

I looked up the Latin for the passage on the desire of the Sacrament and it is: "non quidem pro pœna æterna, quæ vel sacramento vel sacramenti voto una cuм culpa remittitur, sed pro pœna temporali" Here again we see that the voto of the Sacrament can remit sins.

Now, the point from the Canons (which are infallible, as you concede) is as follows: Aut eorum voto (or the desire of them) is the plural of aut eius voto (or the desire of it). The Dimonds admit "aut eorum voto" was added to indicate that the effect of Penance can be received through the desire thereof, as independently proven. But, they neglect that the wording is in the PLURAL. Therefore, there are at least two Sacraments of which the desire can justify. Those two can only be Baptism and Penance. If you disagree, explain with which premise you disagree. Is aut eorum voto not in the plural? Does the Desire of Penance not justify? What reason, in the canon, for that precise wording "or the desire of them" otherwise"? Why "them"?

There is one more point from Trent itself, explaining contrition in the context of desire. I'll get back to that later on. For now, here is the Roman Catechism approved by Pope St. Pius V after the Council.

The Roman Catechism says, "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml)

The Catechism says: (1) the danger present for infants, i.e. of being eternally lost in limbo, is not present for adults, contrary to what was claimed. (2) second, it is not talking of a miraculous water baptism. It says they are not washed in the salutary waters. (3) Third, it clearly explains the determination and resolution to receive Baptism, joined to contrition or repentance over past sins, avails to grace and righteousness, i.e. justification (4) It implies they will be saved, for the danger is absent. This is Trent's teaching on BOD here.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 26, 2021, 08:01:23 AM

Quote from: XavierSem on February 26, 2021, 03:37:37 AM

Pax, I quoted both the Canons and the "Commentary". Trent was a dogmatic infallible Council. Even the doctrinal explanations ("commentary") are infallible. To

There is no definition of any concept of "Baptism of Desire" to be found anywhere in Trent.

Even IF you claim that the translation of "without the laver or the firm resolution to receive it" (better translation than the crappy "desire") means EITHER ... OR, there's nothing positively being declared as there was in the case of Penance.  At most it's leaving it open as a possibility, allowing someone to hold AT A MINIMUM to avoid heresy.  But I could go on for hours on why that translation doesn't make sense.

If it had been infallibly taught by Trent, Xaiver, EVERY SINGLE one of the theologians in Father Cekada's list would have to hold it to be de fide.  But, guess what, only a minority of them do (7 of the 25).

BTW:  the notion of extending votum, firm resolution, to some pagan with a general desire to follow his conscience is an absurdity that is made possible only by translating votum as "desire".  THAT is what 99% of BoDers are angling at, to gut the EENS dogma.  Nearly all the credible Church sources who believed in BoD effectively limited it to catechumens, those who basically had scheduled the date of their Baptism.

Xaiver, why don't you spend half as much time combatting THAT error, the harmful effects of which far eclipse any harm that can be done by "Feeneyism"?  Hmmm?

There was one poster here named Arvinger who happened to believe in BoD but who spent most of his time attacking the BoDers who undermined EENS.  I considered him an ally in the battle to uphold EENS dogma, not an adversary.  You, on the other hand, are an enemy and doing the devil's work.  Arvinger merely mentioned that he happened to follow St. Thomas and St. Robert in upholding the possibility of BoD, but then spent little time on it and spent 95% of his time defending EENS dogma ... instead of attacking those with a strict view regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation (a view shared by the majority of Church Fathers).

But here instead Xavier spends hours and hours attacking Fr. Feeney.  For him that strict understanding of the necessity of membership in the Church is more a danger to the faith than the statements of those who claim that "Hindus in Tibet" can be saved without conversion.

You should spent 10x more ink excoriating the opinions of +Fellay and even +Lefebvre.  But, no, you're obsessed with attacking those who UPHOLD EENS rather than with those like +Fellay and +Lefebvre who undermine it.  +Lefebvre has passed away, but +Fellay requires public correction and rebuke for his objectively heretical opinion.

Why don't you go after the Cushingites (rather than the Feeneyites), Cushing who said "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense.  Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group.

Where's your condemnation of Cushing?

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 26, 2021, 08:11:21 AM

Xavier, before you have ANY credibility in your position with Feeneyites, I expect you to start a thread rebuking +Fellay for his objectively heretical opinion that unconverted infidels can be saved.

I expect you to start a thread attacking the views of Cushing.

Until I see those threads, I expect you to shut up.

Until I see those threads, I consider you to be dishonest and of bad will.  With someone like Arvinger, I'd be willing to listen to any arguments he would make in support of BoD, but nobody wants to hear your crap, when you refused to condemn the REAL heresies that are prevalent and are being spread by people like +Fellay.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 26, 2021, 08:12:58 AM

Quote

Even the doctrinal explanations ("commentary") are infallible.

Not true.  See below.
.
But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm) to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm) or papal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) pronouncement, in which some doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm) of Pius IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12134b.htm) defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) in many cases in regard to conciliar (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14388a.htm) decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 26, 2021, 08:40:29 AM

I don't need to explain or justify myself to you, Ladislaus. You always do this when you run out of arguments, and can't stick to the topic.

I've not attacked Fr. Feeney. You're just misinformed on that point. I specifically said I have no objection to St. Benedict's Centre's doctrinal position.

I specifically attacked the Dimonds, who I consider to hold manifestly heretical opinions both in the open Ecclesia-Vacantism they promote, and in heretically claiming that BOD is "heresy". They are neo-Jansenists and the Doctors fought the Jansenist heresy, when it arose, with untiring efforts.

You're the one doing the devil's work in claiming Dimondite things like "BOD may be objectively heretical" (which St. Benedict's Centre) does not claim, whether you know it or not. I consider St. Benedict's Centre an ally in evangelizing and building up the Church. Neither you nor the Dimonds are real allies of the Church. You also claimed the "Dimonds have done a great service to the Faith". Actually, they've done terrible harm to the Faith.

They've led souls outside the Church, where there is no salvation, and they will answer for it, and for their "Ecclesia-Vacantism" heresy.

I am firmly a Thomist on explicit faith and have defended explicit faith over implicit faith many times. If the debate was on explicit faith, I would be firmly against implicit faith. Just like I am a Thomist on the Molinist issue and have argued against both implicit faith and Molinism many times, whether you've seen it or not. But in obedience to the Church, I don't consider Molinists or implicit faithers to be heretics as the Popes directed.

I suppose some of you would consider me guilty of "ecuмenism" because of this article I wrote: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/ It took hours and lots of struggle to research and write it. But I was happy to do so, because I knew God would be pleased, and souls would be benefited. And accordingly, by the Grace of God, many non-Catholic Christians returned home to the Church. What I wrote was in full obedience to the decrees of Florence and that of Pope Pius XII on conducting "ecuмenism of return". If I'd just condemned every Orthodox Christian as a "formal schismatic", I doubt even one single Orthodox Christian would have come back. The principles based on which I write, as I've amply proven from many sources, are that taught by Popes, Saints and Doctors.

Also, as was quoted in one of St. Benedict's Centre's article, Fr. Laisney, of the SSPX maintained explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity. SBC said they agreed with that, but claimed the Holy Office Letter didn't agree with it. Well, I agree with the Holy Office Letter, in the sense it was understood by Msgr. Fenton. Both supernatural faith and supernatural contrition are necessary for an efficacious desire, and I hold with Msgr. Fenton, St. Alphonsus etc that explicit Catholic Faith in Holy Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for supernatural and salvific faith. If the debate was on explicit faith vs implicit faith, you'd see me arguing firmly for explicit faith.

As it is, the debate is with the Dimondite denial of BOD and especially of the claim that it is heretical. I've seen the very terrible fruits of Dimondism and the horrible lack of charity it leads to, and the presumptions of its followers in declaring everyone but their "Church of 10" to be heretics, and I'm not at all impressed with it and believe it to be heretical. So I will continue to oppose Dimondism, just as I would Jansenism. I will argue in favor of explicit faith and against implicit faith when that is the topic of debate.

Edit: I also agreed with Arvinger back when I was posting with my old acccount. I'm going to bump one of my old threads on the subject.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 26, 2021, 10:06:23 AM

Xavier, you're not being impartial.
.
If Explicit-Faith BOD is catholic, that means it's the "middle ground".  All of us on this thread, including Fr Feeney, would grant this position (for debate's sake).  But this means that there are extremes to the left (i.e. implicit faith/Cushing/Modernists) and extremes to the right (i.e. your perception of the Dimond Bros...).
.
When Ladislaus says ""BOD may be objectively heretical", that HAS to be true, just from a logic standpoint.  You would consider the Dimonds to be wrong, due to excess but that also means the opposite excess is also wrong (i.e. implicit faith, universal salvation of V2/Cushing).  ....and, the descriptions provided by +ABL and +Fellay.
.
You have to be logical in this.  An error is an error.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 26, 2021, 10:34:28 AM

Saying "BOD is objectively heretical" would be like saying "the Immaculate Conception is objectively heretical" before it was formally defined. The Church had clearly shown it favor for many centuries before explicitly and formally defining it and closing the question. A similar thing happened here. BOD has already been taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and is irreformable doctrine.

I notice no one answered this point: "The Roman Catechism says, "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml)

The Catechism says: (1) the danger present for infants, i.e. of being eternally lost in limbo, is not present for adults, contrary to what was claimed. (2) second, it is not talking of a miraculous water baptism. It says they are not washed in the salutary waters. (3) Third, it clearly explains the determination and resolution to receive Baptism, joined to contrition or repentance over past sins, avails to grace and righteousness, i.e. justification (4) It implies they will be saved, for the danger is absent. This is Trent's teaching on BOD here.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 26, 2021, 10:35:09 AM

The foundation of the never-ending, incessant, creation of threads on BOD by False BODers like XavierSem, is their disbelief that un-baptized nice people are damned. They must find an answer to that disbelief, they are obsessed by this disbelief, and so they seek teachers according to their own desires. Here is that honest admission by the late Fr. Cekada R.I.P.:

Quote

Quote

The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”

(* I am not talking about a believer in the strict BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas, for that is a harmless theory. The few BODers who limit their belief to the catechumen of St. Thomas are rare, and never have I seen one start a thread, or write a book or article on the subject. Why? Because numerically speaking, it applies to no one, if compared to the billions who have perished since the time of the new covenant.)

The Objective

The objective of the false BODer is to send an un-baptized non-Catholic person to heaven:

1)  without the sacrament of baptism
2)  without the indelible mark
3)  without the sacrament of penance
4) without being a member of the Body
5) without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity
6) even without any desire to be a Catholic, indeed, even while despising the Church, Christ, and the Trinity

All the points above are hurdles, which the False BODer is obsessed with overcoming and for which he seeks teachers according to his own desire.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 26, 2021, 11:03:45 AM

Quote from: XavierSem on February 26, 2021, 08:40:29 AM

I specifically attacked the Dimonds, who I consider to hold manifestly heretical opinions both in the open Ecclesia-Vacantism they promote, and in heretically claiming that BOD is "heresy". They are neo-Jansenists and the Doctors fought the Jansenist heresy, when it arose, with untiring efforts.

How are they Jansenists (or neo-Jansenists) in your opinion?  Isn't it your opinion which is closer to Jansenism?  The first proposition of Jansenius which was condemned by the pope was:

1. Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men [CM: baptism anyone?] who wish and strive to keep them, considering the powers they actually have: the grace by which these commandments may become possible is also wanting.  source: A Handbook of Heresies, M L Cozens, 1928

You, Nishant, say that it can be impossible for a JUST man to receive the Sacrament of Baptism which Our Lord commanded (John 3:5).  But MHFM says that all who are UNJUST but who assent to the Church's doctrines, and are sorry for their sins, and desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, Our Lord will indubitably grant them the grace of receiving the Laver of Regeneration which is the cause of their justification.

In Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year for the Friday of the First Week of Lent (today), we see that the Gospel is from John Chapter 5.  It is the story of the man who had been waiting at the Waters of Probatica for 38 years.  He said to Jesus, "Sir I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond;"  Dom Gueranger says that Jesus is that man.  And he makes the connection between the Waters of Probatica and the Sacrament of Baptism.

No one can validly baptize himself.  We need someone to represent Jesus Christ in order to baptize us into His Church, the Ark of Salvation.  And everyone admits that BOD does not cause one to receive the baptismal character, nor become a member of the Church,  nor remit the temporal punishment due to sins.  So there is absolutely nothing Jansenist about this.  It is another calumny on your part.

This is the "Feeneyism Ghetto" so I will not address the Ecclesia-Vacantist nonsense which has been dealt with at length in other threads in the Crisis forum.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 26, 2021, 11:21:10 AM

Quote from: XavierSem on February 26, 2021, 10:34:28 AM

Saying "BOD is objectively heretical" would be like saying "the Immaculate Conception is objectively heretical" before it was formally defined. The Church had clearly shown it favor for many centuries before explicitly and formally defining it and closing the question. A similar thing happened here. BOD has already been taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and is irreformable doctrine.

You are confused about what constitutes the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.  It is only in effect when the pope and the bishops together consistently teach a proposition as being divinely revealed.  BOD has never been taught as something divinely revealed by any pope ever.  Your highest hope for proving that a pope taught it is the Council of Trent S6, C4.  But the words "in voto" do not necessarily connote BOD and in fact can easily be referring to the necessity of desiring to receive the sacrament which is a condition of validity.  If the pope had meant BOD, he would have described it in more depth as he did with the Sacrament of Penance.  So your best hope turns out to be nothing but smoke.  You try to keep the focus on the highly doubtful definition of BOD you imagine to be in Trent but you fail to acknowledge Trent's dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is an absolute necessity of means for salvation.  That is De Fide as every Catholic theologian without exception admits.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 26, 2021, 11:44:32 AM

Quote from: XavierSem on February 26, 2021, 08:40:29 AM

I don't need to explain or justify myself to you, Ladislaus. You always do this when you run out of arguments, and can't stick to the topic.

I've not attacked Fr. Feeney. You're just misinformed on that point. I specifically said I have no objection to St. Benedict's Centre's doctrinal position.

I specifically attacked the Dimonds, who I consider to hold manifestly heretical opinions both in the open Ecclesia-Vacantism they promote, and in heretically claiming that BOD is "heresy". They are neo-Jansenists and the Doctors fought the Jansenist heresy, when it arose, with untiring efforts.

Of course you don't need to justify yourself to me.  But since you're tussling online, I'm going to call you out.

+Fellay's stated views are much more harmful (and materially heretical) than anything a Feeneyite believes.  I also don't believe that Dimond opinion is heretical, nor do the vast majority of the theologians surveyed by Father Cekada.  But +Fellay's opinion IS, directly contradicting several dogmatic definitions.  One could make a case that the Dimonds are schismatic by considering believers in BoD to be heretical, but that's a separate issue, and I myself have argue against them on that particular point.  And their alleged "ecclesia-vacantism" is not heretical, despite your bogus syllogisms claiming that it is.  We've gone through pages of material discussing it.

So if you're truly sincere about this subject, then you'd spend more time going after them than the Dimonds.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Nishant Xavier on February 27, 2021, 01:30:08 AM

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Clemens Maria You are confused about what constitutes the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.  It is only in effect when the pope and the bishops together consistently teach a proposition as being divinely revealed.  BOD has never been taught as something divinely revealed by any pope ever.

I answered this on the other thread for e.g. by citing Fr. Adolphe Tanqueray on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium: "290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals."

Next, your statement that BOD has not been taught as divinely revealed by any Pope ever is incorrect. Pope Leo XIII approved the Baltimore Catechism and that Catechism presents BOD as divinely revealed, as already shown: "A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching."

And I also showed the numerous Popes who have praised St. Alphonsus - a Bishop and member of the Teaching Church - and his work teaching BOD was de fide and the teaching of Council of Trent. "“No ecclesiastical writer has ever received more direct, positive and formal approbation than that accorded by the Holy See to the moral writings of this Doctor of the Church. While still alive, four Popes expressed their admiration of his prudent doctrine. (…) In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him – simply on the fact that St. Alphonsus said so. Each of the thirteen predecessors of Pius XII in the chair of Peter has in some way or another recommended, approved or exalted the ‘Moral Theology’ of the Patron of confessors." https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html Bishops etc taught this in their seminaries for generations, and it is where the Doctor teaches that BOD is de fide in virtue of Trent.

Even Ladislaus said it would be a blemish on the Church's Mark of Holiness if She declared as Doctor one who taught error as de fide. But it's worse than with the Dimonds. For they claim what he taught as de fide is heresy.

1. Please answer these questions in order. I cited Pope St. Pius V's teaching in the Roman Catechism, I don't want to post it again here. The Dimonds admit this Catechism contradicts their idea. Do you agree that it teaches Baptism of Desire? Do you not see the intrinsic absurdity - not to mention heresy - of believing the Church in Her Catechism contradicted a dogma She had just officially defined? Imagine the Church releasing a Catechism after declaring the Immaculate Conception, and teaching the opposite. Also, if someone contradicted what Trent taught on Transubstantiation after Trent, Catholics would say he is a heretic. So why don't you condemn Pope St. Pius V as a heretic here? Because you know if you did so, you would only condemn yourself as a heretic, since it is heretical to say a Canonized Saintly Pontiff was a heretic. Pope St. Pius X also taught Baptism of Desire in his Catechism, and the Dimonds claim that Catechism "word-for-word" contradicts their understanding of dogma. So, by Dimondite sedevantism, why wasn't H.H. a heretic too?

2. Next, the true understanding of Baptism's necessity is that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire - as the Church teaches in Canon Law. Do you deny this? This is the dogma, not your private understanding of it. Otherwise, the Church has officially taught Heresy against Her own dogmas for centuries. So either condemn all the Popes, Doctors and Saints who taught Baptism is necessary in re or in voto (like St. Robert) was the teaching of Trent, or admit you can't condemn us Catholics who follow their teaching. Ladislaus loves to quote Msgr. Fenton saying "Christ's disciples enjoy infallible security in the Church to such an extent that they can never be brought to the point of ruining themselves spiritually by their obedience" (paraphrase). So what happened to that here? Also, I proved it from Trent, when it said Baptism is necessary just as Penance is necessary. But Penance, as even the Dimonds and you concede, is necessary in re or in voto. Therefore, so is Baptism necessary in re or in voto, as St. Robert says is the authentic teaching of the Council of Trent. What is your response to that? "Thus also the Council of Trent teaches that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)."

Pope St. Pius X also teaches this understanding, that BOD can supply Baptism's necessity, and so does Dr. Ludwig Ott teach the same.

SBC: "That august synod, in its Decree on Justification, defined that the state of justification can only be conferred by the sacrament of baptism in re or in voto — in actual reception or in vowed intent to receive. (Session VI, c. IV)" Not even Fr. Feeney denied this.

The Dimonds are wrong. I accept SBC's theological position that everyone who receives Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water before they die, as a permissible theological position, and even a probable one. But I condemn Dimondism as heresy, as the Popes have already said it is safe to do, in saying any Catholic, even without knowing reasons, can safely follow St. Alphonsus' opinion. 

3. As for Jansenism, Baius was a Jansenist and his opinions were condemned by Pope St. Pius V. It is a logical implication of those condemnations, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, that Baptism of Desire is true Doctrine. "The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm) of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism ... The same doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) is taught by Pope Innocent III (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm) (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) Pius V (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12130a.htm) and Gregory XII (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07001a.htm), in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02209c.htm)." Do you disagree with this?

The Popes also praise St. Alphonsus for fighting Jansenism. Jansenists denied sufficient grace was given to all. St. Alphonsus, and all Thomists on the Grace controversy, teach that it is. As applied to the salvation issue, God gives all sufficient grace to attain salvation.

Pope Ven. Pius XII also taught that an act of love of God or contrition can supply the absence of Baptism for adults. The list is endless.

As for Ecclesia-Vacantism, we'll discuss that in its proper place, the Apostolicity thread, later on. Some SVs argue SVism doesn't necessitate EVism. That's not what the Dimonds argue, nor did they become EVs recently. They've argued for a long time, like at least 10 years, that the entire jurisdictional hierarchy defected, and that therefore there are no more Successors to the Apostles. A manifest heresy, and a purely Protestant one, that the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic. But that discussion is for elsewhere.

Title: Re: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire?
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 28, 2021, 03:44:02 PM

Quote from: XavierSem on February 27, 2021, 01:30:08 AM

I answered this on the other thread for e.g. by citing Fr. Adolphe Tanqueray on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium: "290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals."

And yet, you don't accept the doctrines of religious liberty, ecuмenism and fraternity as well as practical universal salvation as taught universally by the Novus Ordo hierarchy.  What's your excuse?  Don't try to hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself.  If you have good reason not to embrace the Novus Ordo religion, you should assume I have good reason as well.

Quote from: XavierSem on February 27, 2021, 01:30:08 AM

Next, your statement that BOD has not been taught as divinely revealed by any Pope ever is incorrect. Pope Leo XIII approved the Baltimore Catechism and that Catechism presents BOD as divinely revealed, as already shown: "A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching."

There's no evidence that they are proposing BOD as divinely revealed.  They only propose that some aspects of justification are divinely revealed.  But it is a catechism and even with papal approval their application of these divinely revealed aspects of justification applied to BOD does not rise to the level of magisterial teaching.  But what do you care?  You believe that dogmas can be interpreted to mean the opposite of their literal meaning.  Baptism is absolutely necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.  De Fide.  No problem for you, you believe that means that people can be saved without baptism.

Quote from: XavierSem on February 27, 2021, 01:30:08 AM

2. Next, the true understanding of Baptism's necessity is that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire - as the Church teaches in Canon Law. Do you deny this? This is the dogma, not your private understanding of it. Otherwise, the Church has officially taught Heresy against Her own dogmas for centuries. So either condemn all the Popes, Doctors and Saints who taught Baptism is necessary in re or in voto (like St. Robert) was the teaching of Trent, or admit you can't condemn us Catholics who follow their teaching. Ladislaus loves to quote Msgr. Fenton saying "Christ's disciples enjoy infallible security in the Church to such an extent that they can never be brought to the point of ruining themselves spiritually by their obedience" (paraphrase). So what happened to that here? Also, I proved it from Trent, when it said Baptism is necessary just as Penance is necessary. But Penance, as even the Dimonds and you concede, is necessary in re or in voto. Therefore, so is Baptism necessary in re or in voto, as St. Robert says is the authentic teaching of the Council of Trent. What is your response to that? "Thus also the Council of Trent teaches that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)."

Here is the crux of the issue.  You claim that the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity for salvation "in fact or in desire".  But you believe along with all theologians including St Thomas and St Alphonsus that BOD is NOT the SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.  It does not confer on the recipient the grace of baptism.  It only confers on the recipient the grace of justification.  So by definition, BOD does not confer the graces which are necessary for salvation.  If you stopped calling it Baptism of Desire and instead called it Justification By Desire, it would probably be more clear.  The Council of Trent didn't teach that justification alone is necessary for salvation.  It taught that baptism is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.  This is De Fide.  Look in Ott or any other theology manual.  And even the idea that one could be justified outside the sacramental system of the Catholic Church is heretical.  The sacraments in general are necessary for salvation (De Fide, Council of Trent).  Also Pope Leo the Great taught dogmatically that justification cannot be obtained separate from the water of baptism.  You have to be baptized in order to be justified since the promulgation of the Gospel.

The problem with your conception of BOD as it relates to the Sacrament of Baptism is that you relegate the grace of the baptismal character indelibly imprinted on the soul, the grace of incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ, and the grace of the remission of the temporal punishment due to sins to unimportant and unnecessary graces which can safely be dispensed with or ignored.  The Council of Trent says otherwise.

The other stuff you mentioned are just gratuitous assertions on your part.  I'll ignore them.