Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: patientiam on April 23, 2014, 11:54:08 PM
-
To all BODers: Does “baptism of desire” grant the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth, yes or no?
St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas both say that BOD does not grant the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth because the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth is:
1. The forgiveness of original and actual sin, AND
2. The remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.
#2 is the key:
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”
St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas both say that BOD does not grant #2, the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin:
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing supplies the place of the true river of baptism “with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
St. Thomas: “If therefore a catechumen has the desire for baptism... then such a one departing [or dying] does not immediately attain eternal life but will suffer punishment for past sins. Nevertheless he himself will be saved in this way as though through fire, as stated in 1 Cor. III.” (Summa Theologiae, Pt. III, Q. 68, A.2, Reply to Obj. 2)
Therefore:
1. BOD is not baptism.
2. BOD is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
3. BOD cannot save anyone.
4. BOD is a heresy.
5. Anyone who obstinately holds to “baptism of desire” after seeing the positive dogmatic evidence proving that it is a heresy, is a heretic.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that... the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of
punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
Pope Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge (# 25), March 14, 1937: “‘Original sin’ is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Rom. v. 12). It is the loss of grace, and therefore eternal life, together with a propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer.”
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
Pope Pelagius I, Fide Pelagii to Childebert, April, 557: “For I confess that all men from Adam... will then rise again and stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or bad [Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10]... the wicked, however, remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for destruction [Rom. 9:22], who either did not know the way of the Lord, or knowing it left it when seized by various transgressions, He will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn without end.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:... ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
"Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS."
All quotes from the book, Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, and the video, The Best Argument Against "Baptism of Desire", both by Bro. Peter Dimond OSB.
-
.
There really ought to be a separate forum for these threads. They're killing CI.
Therefore:
1. BOD is not baptism.
2. BOD is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
3. BOD cannot save anyone.
4. BOD is a heresy.
5. Anyone who obstinately holds to “baptism of desire” after seeing the positive dogmatic evidence proving that it is a heresy, is a heretic.
I didn't have to read to the end before I knew this was the cubic-zirconia Dimond brothers.
(1.) BoD is not baptism -- they got one thing right. But that's about all.
It's most curious to see otherwise sound thinkers (BoD'ers) say that BoD is not baptism, but it is a KIND of baptism, because there are three kinds of baptism, one of which is baptism (of water) and the other two of which are not baptism (not of water). Very Very Strange.
(2.) While BoD is not doctrine, it is a theological speculation, but it seems to be only good for getting certain people really upset, and that's also weird.
(3.) Whether BoD can or cannot save anyone is God's problem, and not ours.
(4.) BoD is not a heresy. It is a theological speculation and nothing more.
(5.) There is no positive dogmatic evidence proving that it is a heresy, because it isn't a heresy.
(5.) Anyone who believes in it is not a 'heretic'.
.
-
I agree that BOD in itself is not a heresy but a theological speculation only, which unfortunately has lead to heresy because of the Modernist abuse. BOD/BOB have never been de fide Catholic dogma. The original speculation only applies to actual catechumens and martyrs only. Unfortunately, because of what the BOD/ BOB has morphed into, becoming the theological Modernist loophole into religious indifferentism and Vatican II ecclesiology, I do think the teaching really needs to be re-evaluated.
-
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.
-
.
Name one other topic where this twisted thinking applies:
A crow is not a bird, but it is a kind of bird.
Granite is not a rock but it is a kind of rock.
Sunshine is not radiation but it is a kind of radiation.
Oxygen is not a gas but it is a kind of gas.
Cotton is not a fiber but it is a kind of fiber.
Iron is not an element but it is a kind of element.
Aspirin is not a chemical but it is a kind of chemical.
Physics is not a science but it is a kind of science.
Walking is not exercise but it is a kind of exercise.
Cooking is not art but it is a kind of art.
Skiing is not a sport but it is a kind of sport.
Stamp-collecting is not a hobby but it is a kind of hobby.
Shoes, belts and purses are not accessories but they are kinds of accessories.
An ocean cruise is not a vacation but it is a kind of vacation.
Nylon rope is not a rope but it is a kind of rope.
Marijuana is not a plant but it is a kind of plant.
I should probably point out, lest I'm misunderstood: these are given as examples of ridiculous propositions, similar to saying that BoD is not a sacrament but it is a kind of baptism (and baptism is a sacrament).
.
-
.
Syllogism Time!
I.
Major proposition: Baptism of water is a sacrament.
Minor proposition: But baptism of desire is not a sacrament.
Conclusion: Therefore, baptism of desire is a kind of baptism.
II.
Major: There are 7 (seven) sacraments, one of which is holy Baptism.
Minor: But there are 3 (three) kinds of baptism.
Conclusion: Therefore, 7 (seven) is the same as 9 (nine).
III.
Major: Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are kinds of baptism.
Minor: But BoD and BoB are not sacraments.
Conclusion: BoD and BoB are kinds of a sacrament without being sacraments.
IV.
Major: Baptism of desire is a kind of baptism.
Minor: But Baptism of water is also a kind of baptism.
Conclusion: Baptism is both the same as baptism of desire, and different, at the same time.
V.
Major: Pope Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity says that the principle of non-contradiction no longer applies anymore.
Minor: But adherents of BoD and BoB deny the principle of non-contradiction.
Conclusion: BoD and BoB conform to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity.
VI.
Major: Holy Baptism leaves an indelible, everlasting mark on the soul.
Minor: But neither BoD nor BoB leave any such permanent mark on the soul.
Conclusion: BoD and BoB cannot be the same as holy Baptism.
VII.
Major: Everyone for all eternity, in heaven or in hell, will know who was baptized and who was not, because of the mark of the sacrament.
Minor: But those who received BoD or BoB have no such sacramental mark, since BoD and BoB are not sacraments.
Conclusion: No one in heaven or in hell will know who received BoD or BoB.
VIII.
Major: No one in eternity will know who received BoB or BoD.
Minor: But there will be some in heaven and in hell who did receive them.
Conclusion: Eternity is a place where some things that are real will not be understood.
IX.
Major: Defined dogma has the added note of papal definition.
Minor: But BoB and BoD have no such added note of definition.
Conclusion: BoB and BoD are not dogmatic.
X.
Major: BoB and BoD are very popular amongst liberals and heretics.
Minor: But some prominent theologians have promoted some form of BoB and BoD.
Conclusion: Therefore, liberals and heretics are promoters of Church doctrine.
XI.
Major: Church doctrine is taught consistently throughout the centuries of the Church's history.
Minor: BoD and BoB have been largely ignored throughout Church history.
Conclusion: Consequently, BoD and BoB are not doctrine.
XII.
Major: Sometimes even a bad pope can be prophetic and infallible.
Minor: Pope Paul VI was a bad pope.
Conclusion: When he said that the smoke of satan has entered the Church through some crack, Paul VI may have been prophetic and infallible.
XIII.
Major: False propositions can be a crack in the Church.
Minor: Saying that BoD and BoB are doctrine can be thought of as a crack in the Church.
Conclusion: BoB and BoD can be thought of as false propositions.
XIV.
Major: Propositions which history's great theologians would have regarded as silly have no credibility among what would be Church doctrine.
Minor: BoB and BoD as they are promoted and believed by liberals today would have been utterly ridiculous to the great theologians of the past, some of whom the liberals like to quote without any solid basis.
Conclusion: Therefore, BoB and BoD as they are promoted today do not rise to the level of Church doctrine.
.
-
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.
Is the de fide teaching limited to actual catechumens and martyrs?
-
.
Baptism of desire is not de fide, and to deny it is not a 'heresy'.
But to accuse someone of 'heresy' for denying it IS a heresy.
And to accuse someone who says it is de fide of 'heresy' is just nonsense.
.
-
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.
Is the de fide teaching limited to actual catechumens and martyrs?
There is not such either
-
(5.) Anyone who believes in it is not a 'heretic'.
Should have been item number 6. :cool:
I agree that BOD in itself is not a heresy but a theological speculation only, which unfortunately has lead to heresy because of the Modernist abuse. BOD/BOB have never been de fide Catholic dogma. The original speculation only applies to actual catechumens and martyrs only. Unfortunately, because of what the BOD/ BOB has morphed into, becoming the theological Modernist loophole into religious indifferentism and Vatican II ecclesiology, I do think the teaching really needs to be re-evaluated.
It's fact that the opinion of a BOD was and is only that - an opinion, and that because Trent defined the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, the opinion of salvation via a BOD can ever be a dogma, and also true that originally, the opinion only applied to catechumens.
Since the time of Trent, no one can say salvation is possible without the sacrament of baptism, without at the same time anathematizing themselves - whether the obstinate and literal rejection of Trent's teaching makes one a heretic or not is debatable, but certainly there have been many heretical postings here on CI promoting in direct contradiction of Trent's teachings, namely, that salvation is assured to those who die without the sacrament, therefore outside the Church.
Does that make those who post such things a heretic? I do not know but it seems that by now, the subject matter of the debate should focus on whether or not those who promote salvation without any sacrament at all, which is in direct contradiction to Trent, are simply mistaken or whether they are heretics or not.
Also, does anyone know who was the first one to ask: "How many baptisms are there?"
-
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.
Is the de fide teaching limited to actual catechumens and martyrs?
Ambrose knows nothing but that "defide" line, which he repeats like a parrot.
Curiously, here's a BODer theologian quoted all the time by them, saying the opposite of what Ambrose is saying:
Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity
of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation;
Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the
promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without
exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”
-
.
Syllogism Time!
I.
Major proposition: Baptism of water is a sacrament.
Minor proposition: But baptism of desire is not a sacrament.
Conclusion: Therefore, baptism of desire is a kind of baptism.
II.
Major: There are 7 (seven) sacraments, one of which is holy Baptism.
Minor: But there are 3 (three) kinds of baptism.
Conclusion: Therefore, 7 (seven) is the same as 9 (nine).
III.
Major: Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are kinds of baptism.
Minor: But BoD and BoB are not sacraments.
Conclusion: BoD and BoB are kinds of a sacrament without being sacraments.
IV.
Major: Baptism of desire is a kind of baptism.
Minor: But Baptism of water is also a kind of baptism.
Conclusion: Baptism is both the same as baptism of desire, and different, at the same time.
V.
Major: Pope Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity says that the principle of non-contradiction no longer applies anymore.
Minor: But adherents of BoD and BoB deny the principle of non-contradiction.
Conclusion: BoD and BoB conform to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity.
VI.
Major: Holy Baptism leaves an indelible, everlasting mark on the soul.
Minor: But neither BoD nor BoB leave any such permanent mark on the soul.
Conclusion: BoD and BoB cannot be the same as holy Baptism.
VII.
Major: Everyone for all eternity, in heaven or in hell, will know who was baptized and who was not, because of the mark of the sacrament.
Minor: But those who received BoD or BoB have no such sacramental mark, since BoD and BoB are not sacraments.
Conclusion: No one in heaven or in hell will know who received BoD or BoB.
VIII.
Major: No one in eternity will know who received BoB or BoD.
Minor: But there will be some in heaven and in hell who did receive them.
Conclusion: Eternity is a place where some things that are real will not be understood.
IX.
Major: Defined dogma has the added note of papal definition.
Minor: But BoB and BoD have no such added note of definition.
Conclusion: BoB and BoD are not dogmatic.
X.
Major: BoB and BoD are very popular amongst liberals and heretics.
Minor: But some prominent theologians have promoted some form of BoB and BoD.
Conclusion: Therefore, liberals and heretics are promoters of Church doctrine.
XI.
Major: Church doctrine is taught consistently throughout the centuries of the Church's history.
Minor: BoD and BoB have been largely ignored throughout Church history.
Conclusion: Consequently, BoD and BoB are not doctrine.
XII.
Major: Sometimes even a bad pope can be prophetic and infallible.
Minor: Pope Paul VI was a bad pope.
Conclusion: When he said that the smoke of satan has entered the Church through some crack, Paul VI may have been prophetic and infallible.
XIII.
Major: False propositions can be a crack in the Church.
Minor: Saying that BoD and BoB are doctrine can be thought of as a crack in the Church.
Conclusion: BoB and BoD can be thought of as false propositions.
XIV.
Major: Propositions which history's great theologians would have regarded as silly have no credibility among what would be Church doctrine.
Minor: BoB and BoD as they are promoted and believed by liberals today would have been utterly ridiculous to the great theologians of the past, some of whom the liberals like to quote without any solid basis.
Conclusion: Therefore, BoB and BoD as they are promoted today do not rise to the level of Church doctrine.
.
Very impressive Neil. Copied for future posting.
-
Neil,
Can you add/make a syllogism with this:
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 believes 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.
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 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 blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church
-
(5.) There is no positive dogmatic evidence proving that it is a heresy, because it isn't a heresy.
There is an overwhelming abundance of positive dogmatic evidence on related subjects which prove BOD to be heresy, such as on the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism and the Catholic faith for salvation. (de fide, Eugene IV, Cantate Domino; de fide, Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5)
1. One must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), and only the water baptized are subject to the Roman Pontiff (de fide, Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2), even though there is no pope today.
2. There is only one Church of the faithful, outside of which no one is saved, and only the water baptized can be one of the faithful. Catechumens are not part of the faithful. (de fide, Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council)
3. One is not inside the Church/a member of the Church/part of the Body of the Church without being water baptized. (de fide, Eugene IV and Pius XI)
4. Catholics must profess only one baptism - Creed, Magisterium. (de fide, Clement V, Council of Vienne).
5. The water of baptism, the Spirit of sanctification and the Blood of redemption are one in sanctification. (de fide, Pope St. Leo the Great)
6. Without the rebirth/being born again of water and the Spirit one cannot enter heaven. (de fide, Florence, Exultate Deo)
7. Water baptism remits both the guilt due to sin, and the temporal punishment due to sin, therefore only water baptism saves a person from hell. (de fide, Florence, Exultate Deo)
These are all dogmas proving that BOD is totally incompatible with Catholic teaching and is therefore a heresy.
The following dogmas also prove that only water baptism saves because only water baptism gives the new birth/justifies/remits the temporal punishment due to sin.
Council of Trent Sess. 6, Chap. 3: "so unless they were born again in Christ, they would never be justified..."
Council of Trent Sess. 5: Chap. 5: "For, in those who are born again... absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven."
-
Fanciful in the extreme.
Does “baptism of desire” grant the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth, yes or no
Yes, indeed it does. 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."
Trent clearly teaches the sacramental effect of three sacraments - baptism, penance and the Holy Eucharist - can be received in fact or in desire, using the same word for each. To claim voto refers in two cases to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire and in the other case to a mere disposition is an illogical novelty that only the Dimond's and the unfortunate souls seduced by them can come up with. Trent further teaches that the sacrament of baptism is necessary just as the sacrament of penance is necessary - i.e. in fact or in desire.'
Some more proofs before the claim is answered.
Second Proof: "...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."
Third Proof: Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Fourth Proof: Canon Law (1917): Canon 737: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.”
All of which unanimously show that the traditional understanding of the Trent - the Church's own understanding - is that baptism is necessary in fact or in desire. No surprise, Doctors like St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, and every single authority and theologian besides explain the Tridentine teaching in this way.
Refutation of certain objections/misunderstandings in the OP:
1. Being born again requires the remission of all temporal punishment
False. Being born again, as seen above in Trent, is only the translation from the state of original or mortal sin to the state of grace. In this translation, it is not intrinsically necessary that temporal punishment be entirely remitted. The reason temporal punishment is entirely remitted in water baptism is owing to the work of Christ in the sacrament wherein it derives its especial efficacy. In the same way, attrition suffices in the confessional because of the special work of Christ in the actual sacrament, but contrition is necessary when the sacramental effect of penance is received outside the confessional.
As seen above in St. Pius X's Catechism, as explained by all Doctors, baptism of desire is nothing other than an act of perfect love of God or of contrition, in which desire for baptism is explicit or implicit, and therefore has a similar effect.
St. Thomas explains that contrition as an act of virtue works as a quasi material cause while as a part of a sacrament on the other hand it operates primarily in the manner of an instrumental cause, which explains the different effects associated with the same.
"Because, as part of a sacrament, it operates primarily as an instrument for the forgiveness of sin, as is evident with regard to the other sacraments (cf. Sent. iv, D, 1, 1, 4: III, 62, 1); while, as an act of virtue, it is the quasi-material cause of sin's forgiveness." (Supplementum Tertiæ Partis, Question 5 Article 1. Whether the forgiveness of sin is the effect of contrition?)
2. Why is only the temporal punishment removed?
Because of the nature of contrition as an act of virtue - it remits the eternal punishment entirely, but the temporal punishment only in part and in proportion to the intensity with which God is loved, as Trent itself explains when it is speaking of the nature of contrition, and also in its Catechism later - "not indeed for the eternal punishment which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or by the desire of receiving the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment which, as the Scriptures teach, is not always forgiven entirely." Thus, they will be saved, but only through purgatory. Therefore also, the Catechism of Trent points out that there is no danger for adult catechumens, because their determination to be baptized, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. This being availed to grace and righteousness is what justification or being born again is, and Trent is very clear the same danger of death is not present for adults as it is for infants, therefore adult catechumens can be saved by baptism of desire.
-
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”.
-
No, it is your reply that is fanciful in the extreme:
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.
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.”
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.
-
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,
"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.
-
This thread is based on the following (newly released video from MHFM):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Major: Men cannot be justified without being born again.
...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).
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sorry, Nishant, but I don't buy this. Here's the quote from Trent again:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
As you know, Trent teaches that all justification has the Sacrament of Baptism as its instrumental cause, thus the reference to being born again "BY" Baptism. Even in BoD you have to say that Baptism is receive in voto. This passage does not restrict the definition of rebirth to the kind of rebirth that takes place in the Sacrament of Baptism. You're left with a preposterous notion of "rebirth" that doesn't in effect re-create the soul and make it new again.
-
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.
-
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.
Your logic is false, absurd and demonic.
One cannot say:
Major: Both prayer and air are necessary
Minor: Prayer is necessary in fact or in desire
Conclusion: Therefore, air too is necessary in fact or desire.
One cannot say:
1. A and B are red.
2. A also has green and orange.
3. Therefore, B also has green and yellow.
You are simply a lying heretic.
-
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).
-
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.
While I see the point you're trying to make (that the argument from the "necessity" of the Sacrament doesn't work), Trent itself teaches that the two Sacraments are quite different, the former being a character Sacrament, so analogies between the two Sacraments and how they work are inherently problematic.
-
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.
-
Baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of both means, and precept. Penance is only necessary by a necessity of precept.
If you do not receive water Baptism, you cannot be saved, whether you were "guilty" or not "guilty" for not having received it. You are simply lacking something required for opening the gates of Heaven as it is only through water Baptism, that original sin is remitted and we are justified.
But penance is different. First, a baptized person could potentially die without mortal sin in his soul and do not ever need to confess his sins. Second, even if this person should commit a mortal sin, he could make a perfect act of love of God, which included the intention to confess his sin, and then if he dies before the priest reached him, he would have died before he received a sacrament which was necessary by precept, but not necessary by the necessity of both precept and means.
Penance is not a salvational sacrament. It is the sacrament of re-justification or re-conciliation with God for those who are baptized. Baptism is the Sacrament of Justification.
-
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."
-
As you know, Trent teaches that all justification has the Sacrament of Baptism as its instrumental cause, thus the reference to being born again "BY" Baptism. Even in BoD you have to say that Baptism is receive in voto. This passage does not restrict the definition of rebirth to the kind of rebirth that takes place in the Sacrament of Baptism. You're left with a preposterous notion of "rebirth" that doesn't in effect re-create the soul and make it new again.
Yes, but I explained that the reason that not all effects of water baptism are also effected by BOD is because contrition as an act of virtue operates in a different way than contrition as a part of a sacrament, in the one case it is a quasi material cause, in the other it is an instrumental cause, therefore it can have correspondingly different effects.
St. Thomas, "Contrition can be considered in two ways, either as part of a sacrament, or as an act of virtue, and in either case it is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, but not in the same way. Because, as part of a sacrament, it operates primarily as an instrument for the forgiveness of sin, as is evident with regard to the other sacraments (cf. Sent. iv, D, 1, 1, 4: III, 62, 1); while, as an act of virtue, it is the quasi-material cause of sin's forgiveness. For a disposition is, as it were, a necessary condition for justification, and a disposition is reduced to a material cause, if it be taken to denote that which disposes matter to receive something. It is otherwise in the case of an agent's disposition to act, because this is reduced to the genus of efficient cause."
Will you not agree that in perfect contrition and spiritual communion, we are deprived of some of the secondary effects of the sacrament, while we receive its primary ones? It is for the same reason.
The sacramental character is one particular effect that one doesn't receive in baptism of desire for a similar reason. St. Thomas explains when treating these topics that grace may exist without the character, and character without grace.
"the sacraments of the New Law produce a character, in so far as by them we are deputed to the worship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion ... each of the faithful is deputed to receive, or to bestow on others, things pertaining to the worship of God. And this, properly speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character ... Both grace and character are in the soul, but in different ways. For grace is in the soul, as a form having complete existence therein: whereas a character is in the soul, as an instrumental power, as stated above ...
I will answer your other points later.
-
.
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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31272&min=10#p2)
Neil,
Can you add/make a syllogism with this:
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.
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."
.
-
Yes, but I explained that the reason that not all effects of water baptism are also effected by BOD is because contrition as an act of virtue operates in a different way than contrition as a part of a sacrament, in the one case it is a quasi material cause, in the other it is an instrumental cause, therefore it can have correspondingly different effects.
You're arguing backwards from your explanation of BoD to give a tortured explanation of the Trent passages; it should go the other way around. Trent should cause us to revise our understanding of BoD (or to reject it altogether).
-
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.
-
.
Nor does John iii. 5 say:
Unless a man be born again of either water and/or the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
.
-
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.
-
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.
No, I don't see it that way. There's are specific canons in Trent which refer to the fact that cooperation of the will is necessary for justification. That's how the key passage in Trent is to be interpreted, the requirement that there be BOTH the Sacrament and the cooperation of the will, the votum. That doesn't mean that the Sacramental effect can be had with the votum ALONE in this case, just that the votum is required in addition to the Sacrament. I'll have to dig up the Trent Canons to show this particular emphasis.
Don't you think it odd that if Trent were teaching BoD that it was completely silent about BoB? Of course that's odd. If you read the passage that way, then you basically have to say that there can be no justification via BoB .... unless you reduce BoB to BoD. But most BoB theologians claim that it works differently, in a quasi ex opere operato manner. You take the canons in Trent regarding the need for cooperation of the will for the justification to happen in Baptism along with its silence in the key passage about BoB, and it's absolutely plain as day that Trent did not teach BoD.
Finally, if you take the "or" as a disjunctive "either ... or", you would have to say that justification can be had by Baptism without the votum ... which is condemned as heretical in the later canons.
-
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".
That's fine, but even justification via BoD (granting its existence) happens BY the Sacrament of Baptism. This is why you have that second part after the definition of spiritual rebirth, explaining that this rebirth happens by means of Baptism, reinforcing the necessity of the Sacraments. Trent teaches very clearly that justification must have as its instrumental cause the SACRAMENT of Baptism -- it makes no exceptions for BoD. Consequently it's still the Sacrament of Baptism that would be working through BoD. By adding the reference to Baptism Trent does NOT say that "the kind of rebirth that happens in the Sacrament of Baptism" leads to perfect innocent. Besides, if it doesn't then it cannot rightly be called "rebirth".
Honestly, it should be a simple thing to say that St. Thomas' speculation regarding how BoD works was just plain wrong.
-
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.
That reasoning is incorrect. Again, you keep making analogies between Baptism and Penance while ignoring the differences. NEVER has Penance been referred to as a "rebirth"; it's not. Baptism, however, IS a rebirth, and Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without rebirth, defining rebirth as the restoration to complete innocence.
-
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.
I suspect that there's a difference between the type of temporal punishment due to sin for the just and the temporal punishment one might receive in hell for sins. Actually, I suspect that the pain of sense in hell (which I refer only loosely to as "temporal" punishment) isn't temporal punishment at all but eternal punishment (temporal meaning ... for a certain time). So I may have mixed the terms, but it seems to me that naturally virtuous activities could mitigate the eternal sufferings of sense (so perhaps I should have referred to the pain of sense more generically). Again, I'm only speculating here. I just find it hard to imagine that two people who are damned for the same single sin (all else being equal) and differ only in that one did very little good in his life while the other did much (fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.) ... I find it difficult to imagine that the one would not suffer in less with both having committed exactly the same sin that led to their damnation.
So, for instance, I feel that an unbaptized martyr would enter into a veritable limbo-like state, for the suffering of senses in hell would be wiped away by this. This is as plausible as any other speculation regarding BoB.
-
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.
Is the de fide teaching limited to actual catechumens and martyrs?
The de fide teaching only applies to explicit Baptism of Desire. When the Holy Office explained this teaching in the 1949 letter, Suprema Haec Sacra, it referenced the Council of Trent as teaching explicit Baptism of Desire. It is for this reason that anyone who denies Baptism of Desire professes a heresy against the Faith.
Regarding implicit Baptism of Desire, the Holy Office corrects the Saint Benedict Center for this error against the Faith, but does not accuse them of heresy. The reason is that the Saint Benedict Center in its publication reviewed by the Holy Office had not denied Baptism of Desire itself, rather the Church's teaching on implicit Baptism of Desire.
Msgr. Fenton explains:
The most important error contained in that article was a denial of the possibility of salvation for any man who had only an implicit desire to enter the Catholic Church. There was likewise bad teaching on the requisites for justification, as distinguished from the requisites for salvation. The first of these faults has been indicated in a previous issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review.[12]
The teaching on implicit Baptism of Desire must be believed as it is both authoritative teaching of the Pope's ordinary magisterium, (Mystici Corporis), and is also certain doctrine as this teaching is taught by the consensus of the theologians.
If a Catholic denies implicit Baptism of Desire as explained by the Holy Office letter, he would objectively commit a mortal sin, but would not be outside the Church.
-
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.
Is the de fide teaching limited to actual catechumens and martyrs?
The de fide teaching only applies to explicit Baptism of Desire. When the Holy Office explained this teaching in the 1949 letter, Suprema Haec Sacra, it referenced the Council of Trent as teaching explicit Baptism of Desire. It is for this reason that anyone who denies Baptism of Desire professes a heresy against the Faith.
Regarding implicit Baptism of Desire, the Holy Office corrects the Saint Benedict Center for this error against the Faith, but does not accuse them of heresy. The reason is that the Saint Benedict Center in its publication reviewed by the Holy Office had not denied Baptism of Desire itself, rather the Church's teaching on implicit Baptism of Desire.
Msgr. Fenton explains:
The most important error contained in that article was a denial of the possibility of salvation for any man who had only an implicit desire to enter the Catholic Church. There was likewise bad teaching on the requisites for justification, as distinguished from the requisites for salvation. The first of these faults has been indicated in a previous issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review.[12]
The teaching on implicit Baptism of Desire must be believed as it is both authoritative teaching of the Pope's ordinary magisterium, (Mystici Corporis), and is also certain doctrine as this teaching is taught by the consensus of the theologians.
If a Catholic denies implicit Baptism of Desire as explained by the Holy Office letter, he would objectively commit a mortal sin, but would not be outside the Church.
The real heresy is your obstinate denial of the solemnly defined dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. You believe that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. If such a position is not a heresy, then nothing in the world is a heresy. Hello CMRI brainwash!.
-
I'll have to dig up the Trent Canons to show this particular emphasis.
Ladislaus, thanks for your reply. In my opinion, in the first place, you have to provide some kind of plausible expanation for why every single post-Tridentine teacher of the Faith missed this for centuries, only for Fr. Feeney, you and others to have come up with five centuries later. All authorities without exception read Trent in the way I'm going to defend, so the interpretation you propose is a novelty.
To answer it critically, from the Council texts itself,
Compare: "verum etiam eorundem sacramentalem confessionem saltem in voto ... non quidem pro pœna æterna, quæ vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto una cuм culpa remittitur" (but also the sacramental confession of the said sins, not indeed for the eternal punishment,—at least in desire ... which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament)
(this also answers the third point you made above)
And: "qui voto propositum illum cœlestem panem edentes ... "those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread"
With: "sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto" ... "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof"
In every case, it is evident that voto always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire and never to a disposition.
Secondly, if you're really going to claim, contrary to all this, that the intent of the Tridentine Fathers was otherwise, what is your explanation of Trent's Catechism, where it is written the intention to receive baptism, together with the repentance for past sins, suffices to avail adults to grace and righteousness? Surely you will not deny that this teaches a baptism of desire, especially seeing as it says makes it impossible to be washed in the salutary waters, is referring to the same danger as in the case of infants, i.e. death, and does not speak in the same way it would if it believed these to be eternally lost, as infants are, and as it did for them.
There is a third point, contrary to the view you've espoused here regarding the incomparability of catechumens and penitents, it is Pope St. Pius V's condemnation of Michael Baius' errors, "1031 31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. 1032 32. That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins." which theologians again have always understood to mean that charity in penitents or in catechumens cannot fail to avail the remission of sins.
Again, in Her Catechisms, the Church makes clear that those verses in Scripture when Our Lord promises to any man who loves Him truly the indwelling of the Holy Trinity, really mean any man, be he catechumen or penitent, saying that in either case love of God and contrition suffices for the remission of sins.
Don't you think it odd that if Trent were teaching BoD that it was completely silent about BoB?
BoB, as theologians explain is the most perfect form of baptism of desire, because the most perfect act of love, as Jesus Himself said, is to give one's life for God. Martyrdom, says St. Alphonsus, does not act by as strict a causality as the sacraments. Baptism of blood was already unanimously recognized as Catholic teaching, not even the heretic Peter Abelard contested it, and it is again provided for in the Catechism, when it speaks of catechumens who face death due to unavoidable circuмstances before they can receive baptism, which includes them being killed.
I think if you had an appropriate view of the necessary horror of hell, you might be less inclined to say what you are saying. The least pain of even purgatory, it is unanimously taught, surpass all the pains of the present life. We will come back to this, but the slightest pain of sense in hell must necessarily exceed that, and the pain of loss common to all damned adults in its kind is even greater than the greatest pain of sense possible. Moreover, all the blessed in purgatory have the certitude of salvation, whereas all the unfortunate lost have the assurance of eternal reprobation, and the horrible despair necessarily concomitant with it.
-
Ladislaus, thanks for your reply. In my opinion, in the first place, you have to provide some kind of plausible expanation for why every single post-Tridentine teacher of the Faith missed this for centuries, only for Fr. Feeney, you and others to have come up with five centuries later. All authorities without exception read Trent in the way I'm going to defend, so the interpretation you propose is a novelty.
Very few authorities even deal with this passage. God has allowed this to be misinterpreted, for without this notion of Baptism of Desire the crisis in faith that God has willed could not have come about.
None of you has yet attempted to address the substance of why I interpret Trent the way I do. Every single time I lay it out, it's ignored. You just rely upon the fact that others have interpreted it differently. I acknowledge that others have interpreted it differently. I acknowledge that I'm in the minority. Even Father Feeney didn't interpret this differently; he distinguished between justification and salvation. Now let's look at the substance of the argument.
If read your way, Trent condemns the popular theological explanation of Baptism of Blood (the notion that it acts quasi ex opere operato). Trent therefore reduces Baptism of Blood to Baptism of Desire. There's no getting around that. There can no longer said to be "Three Baptisms" but, rather, "Two Baptisms".
Also ignored: If you make the "or" in Trent disjunctive, "either ... or" , then you're saying that the Sacrament can justify without the will, the votum, which is explicitly condemned as heretical in the Canons of Trent.
That passage you cite on Penance only backs up my point. Notice the use of the "vel ... vel" (vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto), which is an explicit "either ... or". No such construction is used in the Baptism passage.
And the biggest reason is the context of the passage.
By itself it can be ambiguous, read as conjunctive or as disjunctive. No one has addressed this either.
Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.
On the surface (if you didn't know anything about baseball), this could mean that either 1) that we need both in order to play or 2) we can play it with one OR the other. It's not inherently clear.
But what if I do this?
Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball because we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.
Immediately disambiguated.
Same thing with Trent.
No one can be justified without Baptism or the desire for it.
Could be read either way.
But Trent immediately disambiguates in the following passage, just as in my baseball example.
No one can be justified without the laver or the will [votum] for it, since, as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Notice the analogy. laver:water::will:Holy Ghost. Trent had just spent paragraphs talking about how the Holy Ghost acts to dispose the will in order to properly be justified in the Sacrament of Baptism.
If you could convince me that:
Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball because we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.
means that we can play baseball with EITHER a bat OR a ball,
then you could convince me that
No one can be justified without the laver or the will [votum] for it, since, as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
means that we can be justified with EITHER the Sacrament OR the desire for it.
There's no disputing this. It's obvious. Those who interpreted it differently misunderstood it by drawing a bad analogy with Penance. St. Alphonsus also draws the bad analogy with Penance.
-
BoB, as theologians explain is the most perfect form of baptism of desire, because the most perfect act of love, as Jesus Himself said, is to give one's life for God. Martyrdom, says St. Alphonsus, does not act by as strict a causality as the sacraments.
You're wrong on this. Look it up. BoD/BoB theologians distinguish the two, differentiating that BoD works ex opere operantis but that BoB works quasi ex opere operato. If you read Trent the way you do, one has to reject that explanation of BoB and do as you do, which is to reduce it for a form of BoD. Thus, no longer Three Baptisms, but Two. If you read Trent the way you claim it should be read, then you have to reject the popular explanation of BoB. Which is problematic because several of the Church Fathers who accepted BoB at the same time explicitly rejected BoD.
-
I think if you had an appropriate view of the necessary horror of hell, you might be less inclined to say what you are saying.
You precisely underscore one of my major problems with the reasoning behind BoD, that YOU are motivated by a sense of it being unfair of God to not save people who have not committed actual sin. These considerations are what St. Augustine referred to as leading into a vortex of confusion. I follow the theology, not my own sentimentality or my presumption of what is fair or unfair for God to do.
-
We've digressed of course from the main thread topic.
There's no doubt at all that the explanation of St. Thomas (followed by St. Alphonsus) that BoD does not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin MUST BE REJECTED as contrary to the teaching of Trent.
Trent teaches that there cannot be any justification without rebirth and then defines rebirth as a state in which the soul is returned to a state of perfect innocence and can enter directly into heaven without delay (as the term itself clearly denotes).
Why are you so loathe to say that St. Thomas got it wrong? After all, St. Thomas also got the Immaculate Conception wrong. Big deal. You can still hold to BoD, but you must reject one popular explanation for how it works.
I'll tell you why.
It's because it puts all of BoD on shaky ground. If St. Thomas got the explanation of BoD wrong, then his understanding of it appears to be flawed, and therefore the very concept of BoD loses the authority of St. Thomas. You'd rather promote a notion of "rebirth" that leaves the soul polluted by past sin than to reject St. Thomas' explanation of BoD.
-
Very few authorities even deal with this passage ... I acknowledge that others have interpreted it differently. I acknowledge that I'm in the minority.
We've seen St. Alphonsus and St. Robert cite it before, and these were members of the ecclesia docens. But beside them every single authority since Trent who cites this passage teaches it the way I defended, and not one the way you do.Theologians in general are intermediaries between the teaching Church and the Church taught, as Pius IX said, when they unanimously teach with universal and constant consent that a certain doctrine is a taught by the Church, in this case in Trent, the faithful or Church taught are bound to follow. This is a habitual rule of Faith all are obliged by, a manifestation of our subjection to the teaching Church, the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Given that we don't agree on this, there might not be much point in going on, but I will reply for the sake of completion.
You didn't address the issue of Catechisms, even that of Trent, going against you, as well as the other statements such as that of Pope St. Pius V.
If you make the "or" in Trent disjunctive, "either ... or" , then you're saying that the Sacrament can justify without the will ... Notice the use of the "vel ... vel" (vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto), which is an explicit "either ... or"
First, you're ignoring the common use of voto to denote sacramental effect, and not a mere disposition. Secondly, applying your linguistic argument to the second case, that of penance, where you admit the "either ... or", is Trent then saying that "the sacrament can justify without the will"? According to your argument, it must be, because it says is effected by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament, that is, by each individually.
But of course it is not. For it suffices to say the sacrament remits the guilt, because that is the effect caused by the sacrament, the proper disposition in receiving it being presumed and not needing to be expressly mentioned.
Again, I deny that the construction is different, it says, ""sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto" similar to how it says, "quæ vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto", in each case adding a clause to show that desire can cause the sacramental effect. Desire as voto never refers to a disposition.
If Trent meant to teach as you do, there was no reason then to add "aut ejus voto", just as if Trent meant to teach the sacramental effect could not be realized by the desire for penance, there was no reason to add "vel sacramenti voto".
Trent interprets what Scripture means, Scripture doesn't interpret what Trent means. The passage in John 3:5, when taken together with other words of the Apostle and of the Lord in the Gospel, doesn't preclude the triune baptism but rather includes it. Jesus came not in Water only but in Water and Blood, says the Apostle. The Spirit, the water, and the blood are one, continues St. John, just as God is Three and One. Jesus explained this to St. Catherine of Sienna, but you don't recognize that.
Your analogy presumes what it needs to prove. I could say the correct analogy would be, "One cannot play baseball without a bat, or a substitute for a bat" which is more like the construction of the original statement, where what follows the or refers back to what precedes it, whereas a ball is something having nothing to do with a bat as such. Aut ejus voto means or the desire of the same, the same to which it refers back, just as vel sacramenti voto means or the desire of the sacrament.
Those who interpreted it differently misunderstood it by drawing a bad analogy with Penance
A gratuitous assertion that isn't true for most. St. Robert for example wasn't speaking of penance at all, but of baptism and catechumens, and he asserts Trent teaches baptism is necessary in fact or in desire.
-
BoD/BoB theologians distinguish the two, differentiating that BoD works ex opere operantis but that BoB works quasi ex opere operato.
Yes, but you're misunderstanding what this means. I cited St. Alphonsus, and I say exactly what he and others do, if you show me otherwise, I will change my opinion immediately. Baptism of desire depends on the work of the working one, the degree and intensity of the contrition he has, whereas baptism of blood depends on the very work worked, which is why it bears a closer resemblance to the Passion, to the sacrament, and to Christ's work in it.
Theologians explain that baptism of desire is an act of love of God, but in the case of BOB, martyrdom itself is the act of love of God. It is the very work worked, and not the work of the working one, which is why it avails for infants, for instance. St. Alphonsus goes on to mention this example, saying those who deny it are at least temerarious. To be martyred for Christ is the greatest act of love.
You say you hold to theology whereas I hold to sentimentality, but I think the opposite is true. If the Church taught unbaptized martyrs go to hell and suffer sense pains, I would accept it, while you seem to struggle with the common teaching of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, including those who by divine privilege have experienced something of the latter, that the pains of hell even for naturally virtuous persons would surpass the pains of purgatory, the least of which surpass all the pains of the present life.
I respectfully answer you that you don't have the right to speculate against the commonly received teaching, nor to call teaching proposed to us as certain a speculation, nor does your opinion have anywhere nearly the same weight and authority as that of an approved theologian or Doctor of the Church, whereas even they would hesitate to speculate in opposition to what is universally taught in all Catholic schools. I cited the teaching of Saints and Doctors of the Church on purgatory and hell, and not my own.
I will close with two traditional proofs that justification happens by baptism of desire, and that the entirety of temporal punishment is not remitted by it. Perhaps to discontinue my participation in this discussion henceforth, however you choose to reply.
First is the example of Cornelius, whom Sts from Augustine through Thomas to Alphonsus and several others see as clearly having been justified in Scripture while yet a catechumen before being water baptized, showing there is no incoherence at all in such a thing. This is evident from St. Peter and St. Luke in Scripture, and it shows that the baptismal effect can be received in desire. The second is based on another thing St. Peter says about those who in the days of Noah were disobedient, and in purgatory until Christ came to release them, as various traditional sources have commented, which shows some of the just who converted in their last moments being chained in purgatory for a very long time.
I've mentioned that the Church understands the passages on love of God in Scripture to refer to both catechumens and penitents alike in Her catechisms, which itself suffices to show this is no speculation, but certain doctrine we are meant to receive and uphold. Contrition therefore according to the mind of the Church has the same effect in catechumens and in penitents, and the effect of contrition is taught in Trent.
-
.
Threads like this belong in their own sub-forum.
.
-
To Mr Neil Obstat:
If you would sir, please explain why in your syllogisms, your minor propositions start with the word but. I'm fearful that I'm missing a fuller meaning.
but |bət|
conjunction
1 used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned
• nevertheless; however : he stumbled but didn't fall | this is one principle, but it is not the only one.
• on the contrary; in contrast : I am clean but you are dirty | the problem is not that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a predatory way.
2 [with negative or in questions ] used to indicate the impossibility of anything other than what is being stated : one cannot but sympathize | there was nothing they could do but swallow their pride | they had no alternative but to follow.
3 used to introduce a response expressing a feeling such as surprise or anger : but that's an incredible saving! | but why?
4 used after an expression of apology for what one is about to say : I'm sorry, but I can't pay you.
5 [with negative ] archaic without its being the case that : it never rains but it pours.
Thank you for your time.
God bless all here,
JoeZ
-
.
Threads like this belong in their own sub-forum.
.
It is precisely the BOD/BOB threads that brought me to this forum. So I hope you don't mean " there goes the neighborhood" when you all saw me move in next door. :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
-
.
RE... (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31272&min=55#p4)
Have you ever seen the play or the movie, "Fiddler on the Roof?"
...So I hope you don't mean " there goes the neighborhood" ...
Are you aware that an extra space between quotation mark and the word to which it should be attached sometimes ends up separating the quote mark from the phrase/sentence to which it applies?
.
-
That was a typo, sorry.
God bless,
JoeZ
-
.
RE... (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31272&min=55#p4)
Have you ever seen the play or the movie, "Fiddler on the Roof?"
.
Neil,
I know that you are a certain kind of way about grammar.
Because the entire statement is the question and the title "Fiddler on the Roof" is not interrogative, you should place the question mark outside of the quotation marks.
-
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.
Please provide the de fide statement...
-
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.
Please provide the de fide statement...
The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
(Emphasis added)
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm
-
.
There really ought to be a separate forum for these threads. They're killing CI.
Therefore:
1. BOD is not baptism.
2. BOD is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
3. BOD cannot save anyone.
4. BOD is a heresy.
5. Anyone who obstinately holds to “baptism of desire” after seeing the positive dogmatic evidence proving that it is a heresy, is a heretic.
I didn't have to read to the end before I knew this was the cubic-zirconia Dimond brothers.
(1.) BoD is not baptism -- they got one thing right. But that's about all.
It's most curious to see otherwise sound thinkers (BoD'ers) say that BoD is not baptism, but it is a KIND of baptism, because there are three kinds of baptism, one of which is baptism (of water) and the other two of which are not baptism (not of water). Very Very Strange.
(2.) While BoD is not doctrine, it is a theological speculation, but it seems to be only good for getting certain people really upset, and that's also weird.
(3.) Whether BoD can or cannot save anyone is God's problem, and not ours.
(4.) BoD is not a heresy. It is a theological speculation and nothing more.
(5.) There is no positive dogmatic evidence proving that it is a heresy, because it isn't a heresy.
(5.) Anyone who believes in it is not a 'heretic'.
.
Satan is God's ape. He has provided a counterfeit for each of God's good things. The Novus Ordo vs the Latin Mass is one of the greatest achievements of Satan for hatefully copying God's good things. Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism. Protestant vs. Catholic. But the crowning achievement, a so-called baptism, baptism that isn't, a non-baptism with grace that is absolutely less than certain, vs the certainty of the grace of baptism? It isn't worthy of the name! Why argue for BOD when the grace needed is so terribly iffy? And when the grace of baptism is so absolutely necessary? What good does BOD do the Catholic trying to get to heaven? Zip Zero Nada. In fact, BOD only manages to undermine the missionary mandate zeal of Catholics who long to sooth their consciences for not doing more to gain souls through conversion and baptism. It is for this reason BOD'ers get so mad when you tell the truth about BOD. They want that loophole to comfort themselves.
-
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.
Please provide the de fide statement...
The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
(Emphasis added)
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm
Not good enough. Can you provide something from Father Feeney or one of the Dimond Brothers?
-
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, 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 can see the dishonesty at work here. First you use the false "except through" translation ... on purpose. Secondly, you insert an artificial paragraph break to make it seem as if the second part is not a direct qualifier of the first. Thirdly, the word "desire" is incredibly misleading, as even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia admits; it really refers to the entire set of requisite dispositions as detailed in the part about the necessary predispositions for justification via Baptism. Fourthly, you render the phrase, "desire for it" as "its desire" to further obfuscate the true meaning of the quote.
So let me fix it for you:
This translation [=justification], however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, happen without the laver of regeneration or the disposition for it, as it is written, "Unless a man be born again of water AND the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
laver:water::disposition:Holy Ghost (see the entire treatise on justification)
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
-
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, 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 can see the dishonesty at work here. First you use the false "except through" translation ... on purpose. Secondly, you insert an artificial paragraph break to make it seem as if the second part is not a direct qualifier of the first. Thirdly, the word "desire" is incredibly misleading, as even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia admits; it really refers to the entire set of requisite dispositions as detailed in the part about the necessary predispositions for justification via Baptism. Fourthly, you render the phrase, "desire for it" as "its desire" to further obfuscate the true meaning of the quote.
So let me fix it for you:
This translation [=justification], however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, happen without the laver of regeneration or the disposition for it, as it is written, "Unless a man be born again of water AND the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
laver:water::disposition:Holy Ghost (see the entire treatise on justification)
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
That is the old "it doesn't say what it says" or "it doesn't mean what it means" objection. Even Father Feeney realized that one could be justified apart from water based on his understanding of Trent. That is why he felt compelled to invent his theory that one can be justified but still not saved if he dies justified apart from water baptism. Most Feeneyites disagree with him her and claim one cannot be justified apart from water.
-
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, 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 can see the dishonesty at work here. First you use the false "except through" translation ... on purpose. Secondly, you insert an artificial paragraph break to make it seem as if the second part is not a direct qualifier of the first. Thirdly, the word "desire" is incredibly misleading, as even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia admits; it really refers to the entire set of requisite dispositions as detailed in the part about the necessary predispositions for justification via Baptism. Fourthly, you render the phrase, "desire for it" as "its desire" to further obfuscate the true meaning of the quote.
So let me fix it for you:
This translation [=justification], however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, happen without the laver of regeneration or the disposition for it, as it is written, "Unless a man be born again of water AND the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
laver:water::disposition:Holy Ghost (see the entire treatise on justification)
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
I copied it directly from the source I posted. I do not trust Dimond "scholarship."
-
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.
-
That is the old "it doesn't say what it says" or "it doesn't mean what it means" objection. Even Father Feeney realized that one could be justified apart from water based on his understanding of Trent. That is why he felt compelled to invent his theory that one can be justified but still not saved if he dies justified apart from water baptism. Most Feeneyites disagree with him [
her] and claim one cannot be justified apart from water.
-
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.
So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent. Got it.
-
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.
So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent. Got it.
Who said anything about anyone's understanding of Trent. I was speaking very clearly about the relevance of the baseball analogy regarding the two translations. Since translating is my profession, I thought I would point that out.
You should try to grasp what someone is saying before willy-nillyly throwing wild accusations of heresy at them.
-
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.
So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent. Got it.
Who said anything about anyone's understanding of Trent. I was speaking very clearly about the relevance of the baseball analogy regarding the two translations. Since translating is my profession, I thought I would point that out.
You should try to grasp what someone is saying before willy-nillyly throwing wild accusations of heresy at them.
Does Trent teach BOD or not?
-
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.
So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent. Got it.
Who said anything about anyone's understanding of Trent. I was speaking very clearly about the relevance of the baseball analogy regarding the two translations. Since translating is my profession, I thought I would point that out.
You should try to grasp what someone is saying before willy-nillyly throwing wild accusations of heresy at them.
Does Trent teach BOD or not?
I'm not your professor. You can read what the Church says for yourself. That's why the ol' Feenyite heresy has never gotten off US soil and is a non-issue in the rest of the world. No one else, in fact, on the planet excludes the Church's teaching on baptism of desire. It is very clear by the language of Trent, it does not speak ambiguously. If it had said "et" instead of "or" then Trent would have answered in favor of the American Feenyites, however, it did not.
-
-
So it's like saying that the expression:
"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.
So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent. Got it.
Who said anything about anyone's understanding of Trent. I was speaking very clearly about the relevance of the baseball analogy regarding the two translations. Since translating is my profession, I thought I would point that out.
You should try to grasp what someone is saying before willy-nillyly throwing wild accusations of heresy at them.
Does Trent teach BOD or not?
I'm not your professor. You can read what the Church says for yourself. That's why the ol' Feenyite heresy has never gotten off US soil and is a non-issue in the rest of the world. No one else, in fact, on the planet excludes the Church's teaching on baptism of desire. It is very clear by the language of Trent, it does not speak ambiguously. If it had said "et" instead of "or" then Trent would have answered in favor of the American Feenyites, however, it did not.
You and LoT are saying the same thing.
-
You and LoT are saying the same thing.
and don't even know it.
-
You and LoT are saying the same thing.
and don't even know it.
I figured it out when I went back and read his previous comments. I asked him to please attempt to understand what I am talking about before attacking as if I am promoting some sort of heresy. Than I look at his previous comments and he agrees with my position.
I think he jumped the gun for what ever sensibilities there may be.
-
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.
Please provide the de fide statement...
The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
(Emphasis added)
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm
C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.
-
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.
Please provide the de fide statement...
The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
(Emphasis added)
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm
C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.
Then you are not reading it carefully. It is a clear and explicit teaching that baptism or the desire for it transfers one from the state of sin to the state of grace, and that baptism or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God.
-
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.
Please provide the de fide statement...
The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
(Emphasis added)
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm
C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.
Then you are not reading it carefully. It is a clear and explicit teaching that baptism or the desire for it transfers one from the state of sin to the state of grace, and that baptism or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God.
Oh, but I have read it. Many, many times. What I described above is what you need to read so you understand what it says. It is impossible to read the sentence the way you read it once you see how it should be read. Because the words are impossible to misinterpret, unless you view them in a way so as to undermine Church teaching. No salvation outside the Church does not mean salvation for some outside the Church. No salvation without water and the Holy Spirit, or Jesus is a liar. Be washed for your sins, or scripture misrepresents itself. That sentence in Trent can only be interpreted in one way. It speaks for itself and it does not contradict Church teaching when seen as it was intended.
-
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.
Please provide the de fide statement...
The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
(Emphasis added)
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm
C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.
Then you are not reading it carefully. It is a clear and explicit teaching that baptism or the desire for it transfers one from the state of sin to the state of grace, and that baptism or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God.
Oh, but I have read it. Many, many times. What I described above is what you need to read so you understand what it says. It is impossible to read the sentence the way you read it once you see how it should be read. Because the words are impossible to misinterpret, unless you view them in a way so as to undermine Church teaching. No salvation outside the Church does not mean salvation for some outside the Church. No salvation without water and the Holy Spirit, or Jesus is a liar. Be washed for your sins, or scripture misrepresents itself. That sentence in Trent can only be interpreted in one way. It speaks for itself and it does not contradict Church teaching when seen as it was intended.
You have read it, but you, but do not understand it. You should trust the Doctors of the Church and theologians who all know that this passage of Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Distrust yourself and learn to trust your betters.
-
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.
Please provide the de fide statement...
The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
(Emphasis added)
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm
C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.
Then you are not reading it carefully. It is a clear and explicit teaching that baptism or the desire for it transfers one from the state of sin to the state of grace, and that baptism or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God.
Oh, but I have read it. Many, many times. What I described above is what you need to read so you understand what it says. It is impossible to read the sentence the way you read it once you see how it should be read. Because the words are impossible to misinterpret, unless you view them in a way so as to undermine Church teaching. No salvation outside the Church does not mean salvation for some outside the Church. No salvation without water and the Holy Spirit, or Jesus is a liar. Be washed for your sins, or scripture misrepresents itself. That sentence in Trent can only be interpreted in one way. It speaks for itself and it does not contradict Church teaching when seen as it was intended.
Probably bears repeating that BOD is not salvation for those outside the Church. Those who are justified via BOD are very much part of the Church. This is how the theologians have explained it.
-
Probably bears repeating that BOD is not salvation for those outside the Church.
Except that you redefine "Church" and turn EENS into a meaningless tautology.
-
Those who are justified via BOD are very much part of the Church.
How? if BOD is obviously not the sacrament of Baptism, which is the only entrance to spiritual life. You mean the invincible ignorant? because it is evident that BOD adherents are not talking here about a sincere and unlucky catechumen that dies ON HIS WAY of receiving water baptism, but the "anonymous Christian".
However, to affirm that non-Catholics can be saved is to destroy absolutely the principles and merits of Catholic life.
-
The most striking evidence against the denial of both BOD and invincible ignorance is that it is something that has never been attributed to any bishop of the Church. If this is dogma than they are all heretics going to hell and there is no Church hierarchy, not to mention that the very words "invincible ignorance" are attributed to Blessed Pope Pius IX.
That result would leave you with only a hundred or so "real" Catholics who reside in the US and because of the technicalities of what they precisely believe concerning baptism, are the only ones in the world with a possible chance of being redeemed.
That kind of mentality is very unfortunate.
-
First, to believe in BOD / BOB for catechumen / martyrs is not a heresy, given that there has clearly been Church teaching on them. But BOD/BOB have never been dogmas, only theories that belong to the realm of speculation. Because they are fallible, they can be change, and so they should, since BOD is the loophole the modernist liberals have used to undermine the exclusivity of the Catholic Church as only means of salvation and deny EENS.
Again, the discussion is not about BOD/BOB really but salvation of non-Catholics.
Second, what is the merit of being a Catholic if also a Muslim can be saved? Imagine what had become of Our Catholic religion if the great conquistadores and evangelists had held the heresy of invincible ignorance. There had not been any need to convert the pagans or the natives. It is very simple, indeed. There had not ever been Christendom nor civilization. All of the worthy missionaries, valiant crusaders, courageous martyrs, did what they did because they wholeheartly believed in the exclusivity of the Catholic Faith for salvation. None of them undermined or denied EENS.
Third, reflect on this picture about the invincible ignorant. Perhaps it will demonstrate what is it that we are talking about.
-
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire
There's a link with hundreds of sources throughout the entire history of the Church, from the beginning until modern day, teaching BOD. And here is an excerpt:
St. Bernard of Clairveaux, Doctor of the Church, writing to St. Hugo: (bears mentioning that St. Hugo did not rebuke St. Bernard for his "liberal opinion," [some may even say heresy as he addresses BOD proper, rather than BOB] but rather in turn taught the same thing.)
[He begins by quoting Ss. Augustine & Cyprian] ...Notice also that, when the Savior said “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,” He cautiously and alertly did not repeat the phrase “who was not baptized,” but only “whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). This intimated that sometimes faith alone would suffice for salvation, and that without it, nothing would be sufficient. For this reason, even if it is granted that martyrdom can take the place of baptism, it is clearly not the penalty which does this, but faith itself. For without faith what is martyrdom, if not a penalty? It is faith’s doing that martyrdom can without any doubt be considered the equivalent of baptism. Would not faith be very sickly and weak in itself, if what it can give to another, it cannot obtain by itself? To be sure, to pour out one’s blood for Christ is an indubitable proof of great faith but to men, not to God. But what if God, who needs to perform no experiments to test for what He wants, saw great faith in the heart of someone dying in peace, not put to the question by martyrdom, but suitable for martyrdom nevertheless? If he remembers that he has not yet received the sacrament and sorrowfully and repentantly asks for it with all his heart, but cannot receive it because his death comes too quickly, will God damn his faithful one? Will He damn, I ask, a person who is even prepared to die for Him? Paul says: “No one can say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Ghost” (I Cor. 12:3). Will we say that such a one, who at the moment of death not only invokes the Lord Jesus, but asks for the sacrament with his every longing, either does not speak in the Holy Ghost, so that the Apostle was mistaken, or is damned even though he has the Holy Ghost? He has the Savior dwelling in his heart by faith (Eph 3:17) and in his mouth by confession (Rom 10:10); will he then be damned with the Savior? Certainly if martyrdom obtains its prerogative only by the merit of faith, so that it is safely and singularly accepted in the place of baptism, I do not see why faith itself cannot with equal cause and without martyrdom be just as great in God’s eyes, who knows of it without the proof of martyrdom. I would say it can be just as great as far as obtaining salvation goes, but it is not as great in regard to the accuмulation of merit, in which martyrdom surely surpasses it. We read: “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer” (I Jn. 3:15); and again, “Whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt. 5:28). How could it be more evident that the wish is considered the equivalent of the deed, when necessity excludes the deed? That is, unless one thinks that God, who is love, would impute us the evil deeds of the will and not the good, and that the merciful and compassionate Lord is more ready to punish than to reward. Suppose someone who is at the point of death happens to remember that he is bound by a debt to another. If he lacks the means to pay it, he is still believed to obtain pardon solely by repentance and contrition of heart, and so he is not damned on account of it. In the same way, faith alone and turning the mind to God, without the spilling of blood or the pouring of water, doubtlessly bring salvation to one who has the will but not the way because death intervenes to be baptized. And just as in the former case no repentance remits sin if, when he can, he does not restore what he owes, so in the latter faith is of no avail, if, when he can, he does not receive the sacrament. He is shown not to have perfect faith, if he neglects to do so. True and full faith complies with all the commandments; this particular commandment is the foremost of them all. Rightly, then, anyone who refuses to obey will be thought of not as faithful, but as rebellious and disdainful. How can someone be faithful, if he holds a sacrament of God in contempt?
The Feeneyites take well to read the entire passage, especially coming unto the end of it and witnessing St. Bernard both teach BOD, and simultaneously retain the deepest regard for water baptism (How can someone be faithful if he holds a sacrament of God in contempt?).
Likely, it is blinding pride which prevents the intellect from assenting to the Church's teaching on this matter-- it isn't difficult for the mind to grasp EENS and BOD; no, there is a perversion of will at play here. Perhaps the holy and sublime words of St. Bernard can chisel away at hardened hearts.
Incidentally, I know that the person who compiled the hundred+ sources on BOD found some through Richard Ibranyi. Ibranyi has written "books" against the "heresies" of Doctors of the Church, including St. Thomas Aquinas. This is the end which awaits the Feeneyite. The embryonic Feeneyite is content to merely dismiss BOD as "tolerated" (though he personally thinks it's wrong, maybe even heretical) but the fully developed Feeneyite does what Ibranyi does. Y'all have your plane tickets ready for New Mexico?
-
The most striking evidence against the denial of both BOD and invincible ignorance is that it is something that has never been attributed to any bishop of the Church.
I guess that the Bishop Church Fathers who rejected it don't count. And that's no evidence whatsoever since the vast majority of Church Fathers, Doctors, and theologians for the first, say, 1200-1300 years in the Church history are merely SILENT on the matter. At the same time they unanimously uphold the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
-
The Feeneyites take well to read the entire passage, especially coming unto the end of it and witnessing St. Bernard both teach BOD, and simultaneously retain the deepest regard for water baptism (How can someone be faithful if he holds a sacrament of God in contempt?).
And in this way they differ from 99% of modern BoDers.
LoT has utter contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism, which he has refused to retract.
-
The Feeneyites take well to read the entire passage, especially coming unto the end of it and witnessing St. Bernard both teach BOD, and simultaneously retain the deepest regard for water baptism (How can someone be faithful if he holds a sacrament of God in contempt?).
And in this way they differ from 99% of modern BoDers.
LoT has utter contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism, which he has refused to retract.
I keep finding out things about myself that I didn't know. I have contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism.
Here is the definition of contempt: the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
Sir, you are either intellectually dishonest, engaging in tactics not based in reality in order to manipulate the reader or ignorant beyond description about the reality.
I'll translate to you have no excuse for misunderstanding my point here:
Saying I have contempt for the sacrament of Baptism does not prove that there is no exception to the salvation by water alone heresy the Feeneyites promote. LoT has nothing to do with the correctness of your heresy or not. Try to enter the civil realm by simply making your point rather than making such absurd, and what hope for your intellect's sake, dishonest statements.
Carry on. :cheers:
-
I keep finding out things about myself that I didn't know. I have contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism.
Referring to the Sacrament derisively as "water and words" involves contempt for the Sacrament.
-
C'mon now, that is not a de fide statement on baptism of desire. That is a statement on the requisites for baptism. The word "without" applies to both subjects (the requisites) in the sentence as follows: One cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration. One cannot have justification without the desire for it. Hence, one cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. Both laver and desire are necessary for baptism. This is the clear interpretation of that sentence and it is impossible to view it otherwise, since doing so automatically negates the necessity of baptism , which renders the meaning of the sentence a haphazard view of some kind of faith alone belief for salvation and, contrarily, it negates the need for desire for baptism as if we could go around baptizing the unwilling. All that is condemned. Since the sentence can only be viewed properly the way I've shown, it is not only common sense, but good will that gives up a bad idea, no matter who else holds the notion. You cannot make a doctrine out of a sentence at the expense of doctrine.
Elena, can you provide any authorized sources that teach your interpretation of this passage of the Council of Trent?
-
I've noticed that pro-BOD'ers have moved the attention away from the original question.....
So getting back to it... Does BOD give the Grace of the Sacrament... most openly admit it doesn't, in that it doesn't remit the need for purgatory for past actual sins based on the concept of BOD put forth by St. Thomas.
The question then should be a discussion of spiritual rebirth, and the necessity of being "born again" according to Trent...
Trent Session 6, CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.
….,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they NEVER would be justified
So "NEVER" really means, "almost never" . . . . no salvation outside the Church really means "almost no salvation" . . . .
and if you say they ARE incorporated into the Church through BOD then was Pope Pius wrong when he said...
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”40
?????????????????????????
-
I keep finding out things about myself that I didn't know. I have contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism.
Referring to the Sacrament derisively as "water and words" involves contempt for the Sacrament.
This could only be know by one who knows the inner workings of my mind. It is the result of my contempt for the Feeneyite heresy and the souls confused by people like you who keep spouting it.
Baptism is the most important Sacrament of the Church. It is what incorporates one into the mystical body of Christ as member and enables him to receive the other sacraments. More importantly it cleanse the soul of original sin and makes it possible for him to go to heaven.
Do you believe I was unaware of these facts?
If not, why on God's green earth would you claim I have contempt for it. I have contempt for your heresy and the souls you mislead and confuse and scandalize.