Author Topic: Does "baptism of desire" grant the grace of baptismspiritual rebirth? (Read 11470 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #75 on:** June 10, 2014, 01:20:59 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Ladislaus

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?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #76 on:** June 10, 2014, 01:26:06 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #77 on:** June 10, 2014, 01:35:30 PM »

Ambrose · « **Reply #78 on:** June 10, 2014, 02:13:57 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #79 on:** June 10, 2014, 02:47:52 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

You and LoT are saying the same thing.

and don't even know it.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #80 on:** June 10, 2014, 03:21:07 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
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.

Elena · « **Reply #81 on:** June 10, 2014, 05:35:33 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

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

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #82 on:** June 10, 2014, 06:00:58 PM »

Quote from: Elena

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

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
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.

Elena · « **Reply #83 on:** June 10, 2014, 07:05:53 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

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

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
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.

Ambrose · « **Reply #84 on:** June 10, 2014, 07:09:46 PM »

Quote from: Elena

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

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #85 on:** June 10, 2014, 07:20:12 PM »

Quote from: Elena

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

Please provide the de fide statement...

The Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter IV:

Quote
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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** June 10, 2014, 07:38:44 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #87 on:** June 10, 2014, 08:44:14 PM »

Quote

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.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #88 on:** June 10, 2014, 08:57:54 PM »

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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #89 on:** June 10, 2014, 09:18:37 PM »

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.