Author Topic: Does "baptism of desire" grant the grace of baptismspiritual rebirth? (Read 13144 times)

patientiam · « **Reply #15 on:** April 24, 2014, 09:09:28 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. For those that reject this de fide teaching of the Church, you place your soul in grave peril.

To obstinately assert that it is heresy to reject “baptism of desire”, after having seen the positive dogmatic evidence on related matters proving that it is actually “baptism of desire” that is the heresy, is simply to be a schismatic. There is absolutely no positive dogmatic evidence that either directly, or on related matters, supports “baptism of desire”.

patientiam · « **Reply #16 on:** April 24, 2014, 09:37:09 AM »

No, it is your reply that is fanciful in the extreme:

Quote from: Nishant

For spiritual regeneration or being born again is nothing other than that translation from the state of death to the state of grace that the Council of Trent speaks of, and this translation is effected by baptism or its desire.

First proof: Trent says, "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

You completely twist the words of the Council of Trent, and sin mortally in doing so. Trent says that the “translation... cannot (negative) be effected without (negative) baptism or its desire.” You erroneously say the “translation is (positive) effected by (positive) baptism or its desire.” It's the difference between -1+-1=-2 v 1+1=2. That's a difference of 4, in case you can't add up. Big difference.

Secondly, none of your alleged “proofs” carry any authority. Catechisms are not infallible, and neither is canon law. Here's what's required for infallibility:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, The Definition of Papal Infallibility: “We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,that Infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”

Notice it doesn't say anything about catechisms or canon law? That's because catechisms and canon laws are not infallible.

Quote from: Nishant

Being born again requires the remission of all temporal punishment

False.

Absurd. The whole point of being “born again” means that one is totally cleansed of the consequences of both original and actual sin. Hence the newly baptized are justified:

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust - seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own - so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.”

Quote from: Nishant

2. Why is only the temporal punishment removed?

First, according to St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, BOD does not remove temporal punishment. Your reply makes no sense whatsoever: “only the temporal punishment [is] removed”. Secondly, even in true baptism, it is not only temporal punishment that is removed, but also the guilt due to sin.

You lose against the Chair of Peter. You always will. You need to convert or you will lose your soul forever.

Nishant · « **Reply #17 on:** April 24, 2014, 09:59:55 AM »

I made one typo above, I meant to say "only the eternal punishment removed" where I said "only the temporal punishment removed"

Your claims that you are free to reject authoritative and binding teaching are just the same old, same old Feeneyite mistakes. Pope Pius IX condemns the idea in Tuas Libenter and the Syllabus, Leo XIII in Sapientiae Christianae and Pius XII in Humani Generis, to name just a few instances. The last of these says,

Quote

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine."

But more than that, you not only reject teaching that is authoritative and binding, as is the teaching of Catechisms like that of Trent in particular, you go much further, and call them heretical. That, and claiming the Church's own canon law contains heresies against Trent would in fact call down ipso facto effects upon you. How do you think you will escape that?

The double negative in the statement "cannot be effected without baptism, or its desire" amounts precisely to saying that justification is effected no less by the one (baptism) than by the other (its desire). It is like saying, for example, that creation ex nihilo cannot be effected except by God or His Word, meaning that creation is effected by God, or by His Word.

I gave you two other dogmatic proofs, which you didn't even attempt to reply to. We'll take it a step at a time. Do you admit that the sacramental effect of penance and the Eucharist can be received in voto?

If yes, and I think even you will not deny that, then firstly what is your basis for saying voto refers in two cases to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire and in the third case to a mere disposition?

Secondly, it can be seen that you are mistaken in another way, because Trent says the sacrament of baptism is necessary as the sacrament of penance itself is necessary. That makes it a necessity in fact or in desire.

As precisely is explained by all authorities since.

You can't reject legitimately all authorititative and binding teaching of Catechisms, of the Magisterium, of the Church, of Her Doctors, relying on your own private judgment. While on the other hand you condemn those who abide by them.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:05:46 AM »

This thread is based on the following (newly released video from MHFM):

patientiam · « **Reply #19 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:21:29 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

It is like saying, for example, that creation ex nihilo cannot be effected except by God or His Word, meaning that creation is effected by God, or by His Word.

You make the same mortally sinful mistake. You also change your original double positive (is effected by) to a negative (cannot) and a positive (except by). You are trying to deceive me, and it isn't working.

The words “without” and “except by” are completely different. “Without” makes no exceptions: “one cannot live without food or water.” “Except by” gives an option: “one cannot live except by food or water.”

Baptism cannot be forced on an adult, and so not only do they need to receive the sacrament, but they also must desire it. You are simply of extreme bad will.