I see you speak Dimondese, patientiam. How charming. "The Ink dried" is a common way we refer to edits on this forum, after the time runs out.

Your lame projections grow old real quick. If you're still going to deny that a double negative in language amounts to a positive, then that is your issue.

I asked you two other questions, to which you didn't even attempt to reply. Because they show clearly that Trent is speaking of receiving the sacramental effect in desire, as it is for penance and the Eucharist.

Major: Sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation as baptism itself is necessary. (directly from Trent)

Minor: Sacrament of penance is necessary in fact or in desire (Trent, admitted by all)

Conclusion. Therefore, baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire.

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.

This explanation of how it works is entirely gratuitous.  Based on the Trent citations, this thinking needs to be changed.  We cannot go the other way around and reinterpret Trent in order to justify this explanation of how BoD works.  Trent obviously has a higher authority than this entirely speculative viewpoint.  You need to abandon this explanation of how BoD works.

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.

But, to use BoDer "logic", how can God be "bound by the Sacraments" even when it comes to conferring this character?  And a lot of BoD theorists will say that BoD only happens at the moment of death.

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.

I don't think that indulgences have anything to do with this.  Original / Mortal sin involve the guilt of sin, whereas the temporal punishment involves the consequences of sin.  I feel that the good people do can alter the degree of the pains of sense (temporal punishment) they would suffer even in hell (where there is no beatific vision).  So you have two people, one commits a single act of adultery and is damned.  Another commits a single act of adultery and is damned.  But the second person also did all kinds of good deeds for people (gave to charity, showed kindness), whereas the first didn't do anything of this nature.  I can't imagine how the second person's suffering in hell for eternity wouldn't be less than that of the first because some of the natural goodness would offset some of the temporal punishment (pain of sense).  I can't imagine that the eternal sufferings of these two people would be identical.  I obviously have no proof for this; it's just speculation (along the lines of the existence of BoD).

typo:

One cannot say:

1. A and B are red.
2. A also has green and orange.
3. Therefore, B also has green and yellow.

It should be:

One cannot say:

1. A and B are red.
2. A also has green and orange.
3. Therefore, B also has green and orange.

Quote from: Nishant

Major: Sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation as baptism itself is necessary. (directly from Trent)

...

Major: Both prayer and air are necessary

Is this a joke? Anyone can see your major is in no way analogous to mine.

Are you really going to deny this syllogism is formally valid "X is necessary as Y itself is necessary", but "X is necessary in fact or at least in desire", therefore "Y is also necessary in fact or in desire". I don't think even you will.

If I wanted to engage in the kind of silly polemics you seem to get your kicks from, I would accuse you of doing this deliberately, and of knowingly lying, even though I do not. Your error is obvious.  

As it is, I suggest you enrol in a basic philosophy course and read up on logic 101.

I'm going to ask you again, Trent uses voto in reference to three sacraments, what is your basis for saying this refers in two cases to the reception of sacramental effect in desire (Eucharist and penance, as even you concede), but in the third, to a mere disposition?

Secondly, leaving aside the authority of the Catechism of Trent, do you admit that it teaches that souls can be saved by their intention to receive baptism? This can hardly be denied, and it suffices to show the intent of the Tridentine Fathers and the Popes following opposed to your own.

Thirdly, there are Scriptural examples of souls being justified without water baptism, which you claim is impossible, St. Thomas mentions just one, "before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues."

.

I find it rather amusing that certain intelligent men who therefore ought to know better, bemoan how it is today so commonplace to hear complaints that what we are saying must be some kind of trickery merely because what we are saying demands of the listener and consequently the complainer some kind of intellectual and logical process without an overriding obeisance to political correctness -- consequently his complaint;  but then, the same intelligent men withdraw from the endeavor to translate a logical argument at hand into a syllogism, or, in more complex cases, into a series of interconnected syllogisms, and their reason is, it's simply too much trouble to do so, as if trouble is somehow abhorrent, and a reason to avoid the activity from the very start, i.e., their attention immediately turns elsewhere.

I find it refreshing, therefore, that bowler would have this simple question, which see:


Post

Neil,

Can you add/make a syllogism with this:

Quote

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p.309:
“3. Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized… The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Baptism by water in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but do not effect incorporation into the Church… Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”

But yet Ott and BODers believe that they are "kind of incorporated somehow" into the Church. By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are not compatible with Pope Eugene IV’s infallible definition on the absolute necessity of incorporation into the ecclesiastical Body (ecclesiastici corporis) for salvation.  

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41],” unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and only for them do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards.  “No one,” whatever almsgiving he has practiced, “even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Dear bowler, thank you for the challenge.   It seems to me that to adequately address this, more than one syllogism is necessary.  Let me take a crack at it.  (I have not made each step meticulously here, as that would entail many more syllogisms.)




I.
Major proposition:  The most prominent theologians of the Church are generally accepted as representative of a degree of authority in the Church, but not definitive.

Minor proposition:  But Ludwig Ott is a prominent theologian of the Church.

Concluding proposition:  Therefore, Ludvig Ott is generally accepted as a purveyor of some kind of authority in the Church, although not definitive.


II.
Major:  Dogmatic definition is the highest level of authority in the Church, and it is expressed by ex-cathedra papal decrees.

Minor:  But Cantate Domino of 1441 contains an ex-cathedra pronouncement of Pope Eugene IV.

Conclusion:  Therefore, the dogmatic definition of Pope Eugene IV is an example of the highest level of Church authority.


III.
Major:  Papal decrees ex-cathedra, as iinfallible definitions for all Catholics, define what all those who would be saved must believe.

Minor:  But Cantate Domino says that all those who would be saved must first have "persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Conclusion:  Therefore, any human creature, in order to attain eternal salvation from hell, must believe that he shall have persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, lest he be forever lost to perdition.  


IV.
Major:  Cantate Domino is definitive, providing an infallible definition of who would be saved and who would not be saved, on the lone criterion of being in the unity of the Catholic Church.

Minor:  But Cantate Domino admits of no exceptions to its own definition.

Conclusion:  Therefore, any human creature who would attain salvation cannot pertinaciously defy this dogma and thereby believe that Catholics may harbor exceptions to the definition of Cantate Domino.


V.
Major:  In order to persevere as members of the Catholic Church, a person must first be incorporated into Church membership.

Minor:  But according to Ludwig Ott, whom BoD-ers like to quote, BoD and/or BoB do not incorporate anyone into Church membership.

Conclusion:  Therefore, If we rely on Ludwig Ott, we cannot say that BoD or BoB allows anyone to persevere as members of the Church.  


VI.
Major:  Catechumens are those who have begun instruction in the Faith of Catholics but who have not yet received water Baptism.

Minor:  But any catechumen who dies before the appointed time of his water Baptism might be said to have possibly received BoD or BoB.  

Conclusion:  Catechumens who do receive BoB or BoD remain nonetheless catechumens.


VII.
Major:  According to Ott, catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church.

Minor:  But BoB and/or BoD may provide a grace to the soul of an unbaptized person (whether this would be sanctifying grace, or merely actual grace, is not clear -- it would seem that sanctifying grace would be out of the question because then the recipient would not be excluded from Church membership since only a soul without stain of mortal sin can have sanctifying grace and original sin is mortal, therefore original sin would have to have been removed for such a soul to receive sanctifying grace -- consequently, the "grace" Ott speaks of must refer exclusively to actual grace), and this grace is merely actual grace which cannot remit the stain of original sin.

Conclusion:  Therefore, a recipient of BoD or BoB cannot be said to have received remission of original sin, otherwise they could have been counted among the members of the Church.


VIII.
Major:  Obstinate denial of defined Church doctrine puts the denier outside the Church where there is no salvation.

Minor:  But the current popularity of BoD and BoB rather prohibits adherents thereof to recognize themselves as being obstinate deniers of Church dogma.

Conclusion:  BoD-ers might be putting themselves in danger of losing their salvation by obstinate denial, but without any dogmatic definition of BoD or formal proscription thereof, they could be persisting in their error without specific culpability, ironically enough, a kind of invincible ignorance.


IX.
Major:  Pope Eugene IV infallibly defined that no one, regardless of their piety or whether their works of a Christian soldier be what they may, even if they shed their blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless they persevere in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Minor:  But in order to persevere in the bosom and unity of the Church, one must first receive Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost (cf. Jn. iii. 5, &c.).

Conclusion:  Therefore, acts of piety and the solidarity of a Christian soldier, as necessary as they are, even if they include the shedding of one's own blood for the name of Christ, they are nonetheless insufficient.  They may be necessary but they are not sufficient.  



I would like to add, there is a difference between what is lawful and what is true.  God has ordained both.  God has revealed things that are according to divine law, and He has revealed things that are according to His eternal truth.  One of the things that is among the latter but is commonly misconstrued as being among merely the former is water Baptism.  

God did not reveal that man might be saved merely by some vague longing for something good.

God did not reveal that it is by divine precept that might be revoked in the future that for now, anyway, only those who are baptized with water can be saved.

God did not reveal that unless a man make an act of will, whereby he repents of his sins and desires to be saved in the name of Christ Jesus, he cannot go to heaven.

God did not reveal that unless a man be born again of a wish and a prayer that he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


On the contrary,
What God revealed was written in John iii. 5, where we can see it clearly pronounced that it is God's truth, not merely Divine Law, for Our Lord answered this question as follows:  

"Amen amen I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."


.

This explanation of how it works is entirely gratuitous.  Based on the Trent citations, this thinking needs to be changed.

Ladislaus, if Trent had contradicted the Doctors, obviously we would follow Trent, and at least someone after Trent would have pointed it out before Fr. Feeney, whereas no one did.

First of all, Trent says, when speaking of penance, in the Council and in its Catechism that contrition causes the remission of the eternal punishment entirely, but the temporal punishment only in part. I take it you admit this?

Secondly, the word voto has a very specific meaning in Catholic theology before and after, also in the Council itself - it always referred to the reception of the sacramental effect, and never to a mere disposition, would you dispute this? - in this case the effect being the translation from the state of death to the state of grace. You need to prove both of these wrong, for your idea to work.

Thirdly, buried with Christ (cf. Col 2:11-12 for e.g.) always refers to water baptism in Scripture (you are "buried" when you are immersed or sprinkled with water, which is what baptism signifies, and what it effects) and Trent adopts it in the same sense. Trent's passage explains it is specifically talking of those who are "buried with Christ".

Fourthly, let's think this through. What is the status of a Catholic, say who has just recovered the grace of justification by penance? He is in the state of grace, yet secondary effects of sin, called debt of punishment, remain to be expiated in purgatory. This is the exactly analogous state of the person justified by baptism of desire. Justified and in the state of grace, with attachments remaining to be purified, which shows there is no incoherence in such a thing.

Original / Mortal sin involve the guilt of sin, whereas the temporal punishment involves the consequences of sin.  I feel that the good people do can alter the degree of the pains of sense (temporal punishment) they would suffer even in hell (where there is no beatific vision) ... I obviously have no proof for this; it's just speculation (along the lines of the existence of BoD).

I understand you speculate that this may be the case, and I'm glad to know it,  but Catholic teaching seems to me to preclude it. For theology on indulgences is clear is that only those in the state of grace can obtain the remission of temporal punishment, moreover that temporal punishment can be remitted only by meritorious works, not works done without faith in a natural state, and of course this only after the guilt has been forgiven. To be saved, it is necessary to have no attachment to sin, even venial sin, as the condition for gaining a plenary indulgence shows. In addition, since there is no particular work here to which it is attached, desire must supply for this, and therefore the intensity of contrition, as the Doctors teach, must be very great. Only then could a person receive the remission of all guilt and of all punishment. Martyrs for example, for they give to God the most perfect act of love, according to traditional teaching, will go straight to heaven even without water baptism, receiving the remission of the entirety of eternal and temporal punishment.

First of all, Trent says, when speaking of penance, in the Council and in its Catechism that contrition causes the remission of the eternal punishment entirely, but the temporal punishment only in part. I take it you admit this?

Well, it can remit the entire punishment, depending on the disposition of the penitent.  But, yes, of course.  Yet that's true even when the Sacrament of Penance is received in re; that's NOT true of the Sacrament of Baptism when received in re.  Again, it's theologically perilous to make analogies between Baptism and Penance; they differ greatly.