Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Director

Can someone here explain what , "Catholic Baptism of Desire is "  I am at a loss on this one . ?

There is only ONE Baptism, even if a baptism is administrated by a Protestant or atheist, if PROPERLY done, it is a Catholic Baptism, thus the word, "Catholic".

Baptism of Desire can be defined by reading here:

http://www.cmri.org/search-results.shtml?q=Baptism%20of%20Desire

Thanks MyrnaM,, but that's not what Ladilaus or Cantarella are talking about.
I am of the mind that there is No Baptism of Desire

There is another Baptism of Desire, that they mention once in a while, of which I have never seen an explanation on, They refer to as a "Catholic Baptism of Desire".

So Maybe this should be directed to Laudislaus
 
How about it Laudislaus,   What do you mean by a "Catholic Baptism of Desire'" ?

Well director I am at a loss.  You and Laudislaus cannot agree on baptism of desire.  So if you believe that baptism of desire represents some sort of denial of Trent or send then you can answer my question at the begining of the thread.  Name a theologian who states that baptism if desire is heresy or some sort of denial of the council of Trent.  If the Council of Trent is so clear why does bi theologian agree with your interpretation?

Well director I am at a loss.  You and Laudislaus cannot agree on baptism of desire.  So if you believe that baptism of desire represents some sort of denial of Trent or send then you can answer my question at the begining of the thread.  Name a theologian who states that baptism if desire is heresy or some sort of denial of the council of Trent.  If the Council of Trent is so clear why does bi theologian agree with your interpretation?

The fact of the matter , without getting into a long drawn out discussion, The problem  as I see it ,is the erroneous translation of Denzinger on Justification in its Council of Trent, edited by fr. Karl Rahner . Dimonds book brings this and many other unknown facts out backed by Popes and Councils.

Trent is so Clear.... Yes it is , depending which translation your reading if from, and who is the translator.  There are others besides Denzinger s out there, with the original Latin.

As far as Laudislaus ,, I generally agree with most of his views, but in the last couple months , he has changed views on different areas, this Catholic Baptism of Desire, along with Cantarella , is something that Ive never seen explained, and is why I am asking the question.  

As far as Laudislaus ,, I generally agree with most of his views, but in the last couple months , he has changed views on different areas, this Catholic Baptism of Desire, along with Cantarella , is something that Ive never seen explained, and is why I am asking the question.  





[/quote]

I agree with you I am generally familiar with both of the SBCs' position of baptism of desire and the dimonds' position.  Laudislaus' position seems to be a nuance that both you and are unfamiliar with and I would like to see it fleshed out by Laudislaus.

I'll get back to the teaching of Trent, perhaps on another thread, since it's crucial.  I actually believe that my reading of Trent and Father Feeney's position are not mutually exclusive.  Father Feeney had a very brilliant and nuanced understanding of justification and salvation, and the Dimond brothers have always failed in the area of subtle thought and valid distinctions; they try to beat you over the head with a sledge-hammer where sometimes a little chisel is really what's required.

Yes, I do believe that St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine misread Trent.  And I also have a different take on the Catechism of Trent.  There are three or four layers of thought here.  Yes, heaven forbid that one of these Doctors could EVER have been mistaken.  Stop rending your garments (hypocritically to make a point) at the mere suggestion that they may have been mistaken.  Only the Church is infallible.  You only play up the quasi-infallibility of these authorities because you have already decided what you want to believe and are trying to puff them up because they support your position.  Try HONESTLY looking at the evidence for a change, would you?

I used to have a position similar to Nishant's, where I believed in explicit Baptism of Desire (or implicit in explicitly wishing to become a Catholic) for catechumens and catechumen-like persons.  I based this on my belief that Trent taught it, seeing that one passage quoted out of context over and over again.  So one day I sat down, asked the Holy Spirit to help me understand Trent, and read the entire Tract on Justification in Latin, not just one sentence; when taken in context and read in the original Latin it is VERY OBVIOUS that Trent is NOT teaching BoD in the passages cited.  I have since tried to go back and force myself to read Trent as teaching "the laver or the desire for it" as "the laver or else at least the desire for it", but couldn't do it.  Why?  Mostly because of the sentence that comes RIGHT after it, which is rarely included in the citation.  I'll create a separate thread.  I do that on a lot of issues, devil's advocate against my own position in order to remain honest.  So, for instance, I have tried to prove to myself that God does not exist and simply cannot do it.  I have tried to prove that any other religion besides the Catholic religion is the true religion; can't even come close to doing it.  Etc.  I do the same thing with BoD.  I try to prove to myself that BoD is defined doctrine of the Church and can't do it.  I can't find the evidence for it.  Patristic evidence is non-existent and actually pushes the other way.  No one has every demonstrated how BoD has been revealed either from Patristic testimony or, from the other way to do it, by deriving BoD implicitly from other Catholic revealed doctrine.  No one has demonstrated definitively that the Church has defined BoD; it's been tolerated by the Church and widely held by many authorities, but as a matter of speculative theology and not because it's ever been authoritatively taught by the Magisterium.  Unless you believe Trent taught it.  But even then Father Feeney has a brilliant take on that which I'll try to outline (Father Feeney read Trent the way St. Robert and St. Alphonsus did.)  So Trent really is the lynch-pin.

I agree with you, Director, 100% that Trent never taught BoD.  I've started threads dedicated to that subject before.  Unfortunately, every single BoD thread goes off topic and becomes a sweeping general 150-page BoD discussion.  We really need to find a way to stay on topic.

What's absolutely fatal to this interpretation of Trent is the quote from Our Lord that comes afterwards.

On its face, the phrase "X cannot happen without A or B" is ambiguous ... due to the double-negative construct.  It could mean "X cannot happen without both A & B" or "X cannot happen without EITHER A OR B".  But the phrase after it immediately disambiguates.

Why did Trent use the word "laver" instead of just saying "Baptism" or "the Sacrament of Baptism"?  It's because Trent wanted to invoke the notion of WATER.  Trent had also just spent paragraphs explaining how the Holy Spirit disposes the will to cooperate with the grace of justification.  It's about the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament bringing the grace of justification WITH COOPERATION OF THE WILL ... against the Protestant errors.  That's why there's a Canon later condemning the notion that the Sacrament can effect justification without the cooperation of the will.  St. Thomas devoted a question to whether the Sacrament confers the grace of justification if the will doesn't cooperate.

So, back to Trent, the Holy Spirit give graces to inspire the will to cooperate with the ex opere operato grace from the Sacrament of Baptism.

Trent taught that justification cannot happen without the laver (water) or the will (as moved by the Holy Spirit) and then immediately backs that statement up by quoting Our Lord as teaching that rebirth requires water AND the Holy Spirit, i.e. the laver AND the movement of the will by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the cooperation and proper dispositions.

In order for me to accept the typical reading of Trent, I would have to say that Trent said:

Justification cannot happen without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that it cannot happen without both Baptism and the desire for it.  That would be borderline blasphemous.  Our Lord said and, but we say or.

That is NOT what Trent is teaching.

In addition, if Trent were teaching BoD, the fact that there's not even a token mention of BoB is absolutely inexplicable, since most of the Church Fathers who advocated BoB explicitly rejected BoD and most BoB theorists claim that it works differently from BoB in being "quasi ex opere operato".  Trent then overturns the Patristic teaching of BoB but no BoD by saying that BoB essentially reduces to BoD and is therefore ex opere operantis in its effect.

There is absolutely no way that Trent intended to define or teach BoD here.