Author Topic: Does "baptism of desire" grant the grace of baptismspiritual rebirth? (Read 11527 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:26:02 AM »

While the MHFM arguments sometimes have holes in them, their logic here is absolutely unassailable.

Major: Trent -- there can be no justification without spiritual birth.
Minor: Trent -- spiritual rebirth completely cleanses the soul from anything that might offend God and would cause such a soul to immediately go to heaven (sorry, Nishant)
Conclusion: St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus were both clearly wrong in their explanation of BoD because they essentially say that someone can be justified without spiritual rebirth (as defined by Trent)

Now, BoDers could hold on to BoD by admitting that the St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus explanation is just wrong and that BoD does in fact cause spiritual rebirth and the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.

But they'd be entirely reluctant to do so because admitting that St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus explain BoD incorrectly, the very theory of BoD loses credibility because then why couldn't they have been mistaken about the entire thing?

Nishant · « **Reply #21 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:33:25 AM »

I'm incredulous. Trent said this - "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", your claim was that the double negative here did not amount to a positive. So I gave the example. If anything, "except" is even stronger than "without".

But let it be as you prefer, we'll use without then - So, is the statement "creation cannot be effected by God's action or His Word's" not logically equivalent to the statement "creation can be effected without God's action or His Word's"? The double negative makes a positive, this is a basic rule of grammar.

And you are leaving aside that authorities like St. Robert and St. Alphonsus read the teaching of Trent this way - are you going to claim your understanding of Latin is superior to theirs? Let alone their proximity to and understanding of the intent of the Tridentine Fathers in defining this.

Hi, Ladislaus. It is the minor above that is not entirely correct, in the passage mentioned, Trent is controverting the Protestants heretical notion of imputed justification. Trent says in those justified by water baptism, there is nothing that God hates, and nothing would prevent them from entering heaven immediately if they die.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:36:33 AM »

Major: Men cannot be justified without being born again.

Quote from: Trent Session VI Chapter 3

...so if [men] were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.

Minor: Those who are born again have nothing in them which would hinder their entrance into heaven (e.g. not even temporal punishment due to sin).

Quote from: Trent Session V Chapter 5

For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death, who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven.

Conclusion: St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were clearly wrong. In fact, their explanation is, objectively speaking, clearly proximate to heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:41:41 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

I'm incredulous. Trent said this - "cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", your claim was that the double negative here did not amount to a positive. So I gave the example. If anything, "except" is even stronger than "without".

I'm not arguing here about BoD per se, just about the St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus explanation. So let's put the broader issue aside for now.

Nishant · « **Reply #24 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:41:46 AM »

Edit: The first part of my reply above was to "patientiam", not to you, Ladislaus.

Argh. The ink dried. Meant to say, to patientiam, "is the statement "creation cannot be effected without God's action or His Word's" not logically equivalent to the statement "creation can be effected by God's action or His Word's."

Anyway, Ladislaus Trent explains in the second passage that it is speaking clearly of those who have been justified by water baptism, for it continues "For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death", and no one denies that in water baptism, the remission of sins is plenary, removing the entirety of the temporal punishment.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:50:56 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Hi, Ladislaus. It is the minor above that is not entirely correct, in the passage mentioned, Trent is controverting the Protestants heretical notion of imputed justification. Trent says in those justified by water baptism, there is nothing that God hates, and nothing would prevent them from entering heaven immediately if they die.

No, Nishant, that's not what the text says. Trent CLEARLY defines being "born again" as entering into a state in which God "hates nothing", a state of complete innocence ... as the very term rebirth would imply.

Where did St. Thomas come up with this idea that temporal punishment isn't remitted by BoD anyway? Answer: He made it up. (it's pure speculation) There's no theological reason for why BoD wouldn't remit temporal punishment due to sin also. St. Alphonsus just likely followed St. Thomas on this without realizing that it contradicted Trent. St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus clearly speculated that one can enter into a state of justification without spiritual rebirth.

It's similar to how BoDers say that BoD does not produce the Christian Character. How do we know this? Why can't God in an extraordinary way confer this character also? In fact, I'd have a MUCH easier time with BoD if someone were to claim that it DOES confer this character.

If anything, I believe the OPPOSITE ... namely, that desire for Baptism and martyrdom can remit (at least some of) the TEMPORAL punishment due to sin but never Original Sin or the eternal guilt of sin.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:58:11 AM »

Sorry, Nishant, but I don't buy this. Here's the quote from Trent again:

Quote from: Trent

For in those who are born again God hates nothing

It does not say "For in those who are born again in Baptism God hates nothing". It says that "For in those who are born again God hates nothing." Despite the fact that it goes on later to speak about being born again in Baptism, that doesn't affect this passage whatsoever; it stands alone as a definition of rebirth. It's clearly defining the term "born again" according to its very obvious sense and meaning. How can someone be "born again" while still being polluted by past sins in any way? This is just obvious.

And it's the other passage in Trent that was less obvious, namely that there cannot be any justification without this rebirth. St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus claimed that there can be justification without rebirth.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** April 24, 2014, 10:59:49 AM »

St. Thomas of course was writing before Trent. St. Alphonsus just likely picked up on this notion of St. Thomas without realizing that it had been subsequently contradicted by Trent.

patientiam · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2014, 11:03:03 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Edit:... Argh. The ink dried. Meant to say, to patientiam, "is the statement "creation cannot be effected without God's action or His Word's" not logically equivalent to the statement "creation can be effected by God's action or His Word's."

No, Nishant, the ink didn't dry, because you are using a computer. You attempt at humor actually demonstrates your profound dishonesty. Also, you can clearly see that the two statements are not logically equivalent at all. Your faith in man is cracking.

Nishant · « **Reply #29 on:** April 24, 2014, 11:04:08 AM »

Ladislaus, some issues.

1. This is the passage in question, which you cited, and it describes why this is so "For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death." So is it really appropriate to apply this to BOD?

2. Baptism of desire is similar to an act of perfect love of God or of contrition. Therefore, it has the similar effect to perfect contrition, which as we know, (and is dogmatically defined) remits the eternal punishment entirely but the temporal punishment only in part, i.e. in proportion to the intensity with which God is loved, as the Doctors explain. Otherwise all Catholics who make an act of contrition will go to heaven immediately, which need not be the case.

3. Baptism of desire cannot effect the sacramental character for many reasons, but just one from the practice of the Church will suffice. It is taught that catechumens can receive justification by baptism of desire, but even these catechumens have to receive baptism when they can. But if they did receive the character, then this would not be so, for the Church teaches that it is precisely the character that forbids the repetition of the sacrament.

4. How is it possible for one in the state of original or mortal to receive the remission of temporal punishment, Ladislaus? Theology on indulgences, which are remissions of temporal punishment, and the conditions for receiving them, seems clearly to preclude that.