Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15462 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #180 on:** February 08, 2020, 07:38:12 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 07, 2020, 08:48:26 PM

So answer this question, if without knowledge of the Trinity, no one can be justified, how did the Just go to Limbo, and the wicked to hellfire? According to you, all must have gone to hellfire, since none could be justified.

I answered this question THOROUGHLY several posts ago.

Besides my answer, do you think that St. Thomas and the Holy Office and the majority of theologians who hold that explicit faith in the central mysteries is necessary by necessity of means for justification were not aware of this? Your yourself pretend (and it's evidently just a pretense) to also believe in the necessity of explicit faith ... what is YOUR answer to this question? So either you're being disingenuous with this question or you're a liar and don't really believe in the necessity of explicit faith for justification. We get nothing but dishonest sophistry from you.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #181 on:** February 08, 2020, 08:38:07 AM »

You're a malicious faithless bad willed demon, a lying heretic, or both.

I said clearly an Act of Contrition for Justification. Explicit Faith for Salvation.

You really are a totally reprobate bad willed liar who lies a lot, Liarslaus.

ascanio1 · « **Reply #182 on:** February 08, 2020, 09:18:13 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 06, 2020, 05:36:14 PM

#1 is a given, but #2 is not necessary. Even #1 doesn't have to be explicit, however, since it's hard to have explicit contrition for something you don't know about. So #1 can be implicit. Now, the obligation remains to confess the sin if it later comes to mind, but the soul is already in a state of justification. With any Sacrament, there's matter and form, and a merely material omission of a sin due to forgetfulness does not compromise the formal integrity of the Sacrament, any more than a purely material heresy excludes someone from the Church.

Thank you for correcting me.

I appreciate that a contrition of a forgotten sin may be impossible but the honest and explicit intention to recall all and confess them, is required. I cannot obtain absolution if I confess without this explicit desire to recall all sins and obtain absolution for all sins, even those that I forget. Or, at lest, this is what I am being taught. Explicit intention is key.

But my point was that, if an explicit intention is key for confession, then also an explicit intention must be key for baptism.

This would open the possibility of Bod to a very limited number of cases (*)¹ and confirm the exclusion for souls who: (a) know of Christianity and of the sacrament of baptism but do not explicitly desire it or have the explicit intention and (b) do not even know of the existence of Christianity and the sacrament of baptism and therefore have no explicit intention.

(*)¹ a soul who knows about the sacrament of baptism and explicitly desires it but dies before he can obtain it.

Praeter · « **Reply #183 on:** February 08, 2020, 09:48:57 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 07, 2020, 01:50:22 PM

The canon is in the Seventh Session, titled: "Decree on The Sacraments", therefore, the canon is strictly about the sacrament of baptism, not the rubrics surrounding the ceremony or anything else.

May we do a careful, comprehensive reading of this canon by splitting it into two parts?

First, note that like Trent's first quote above, the subject matter of the canon is about the sacrament(s), not a desire for them:

PART 1) CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;...[let him be anathema].

This first half of the canon alone should be all anyone needs to see that a BOD, which is not a sacrament, contradicts Trent.

Note that Part 1 condemns those who saith that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation. This means we must believe that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation. Certainly you cannot disagree here.

I assume you will agree that a BOD is not a sacrament, yet by saying a BOD is salvific, you are saying a) the sacrament is not necessary for salvation and b) by saying a BOD is salvific, what you are saying is that the sacrament is superfluous. Trent condemns both, a and b.

Okay, let’s apply the reasoning of your private interpretation of this canon to another canon from the same council and see what conclusions, if any, we can draw. Put your private interpretation cap on as we review Canon VI on Penance.

CANON VI.--If any one denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law, or is necessary to salvation; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

If we use the Fr. Feeney/Protestant approach here, which necessarily entails disregarding anything and everything the Popes, theologians, and "fallible catechisms" have taught about this subject, this canon clearly means no one can be saved without receiving the sacrament of confession. Not only does that mean those who fall into mortal sin after baptism cannot be saved without sacramental confession (perfect contrition wouldn’t suffice), but it also means those below the age of reason who never sinned can’t be saved without it.

Do you believe baptized children who die below the age of reason, without ever having received the sacrament of confession, can be saved, or do you believe what the infallible decree of the Council of Trent teaches?

Another problem is that that if we believe this canon as you to the equivalent canon on baptism, we run into a contradiction. If the Blessed Mother was free from all actual sin she never had anything to confess, and therefore could not have received the sacrament of confession (since one requirement for the sacrament is contrition for sin). How can we believe the dogma that the Blessed Mother he was assumed into heaven, while at the same time believing the infallible canon from Trent saying the sacrament is confession is necessary for salvation?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #184 on:** February 08, 2020, 10:18:00 AM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on February 08, 2020, 09:18:13 AM

Thank you for correcting me.

I appreciate that a contrition of a forgotten sin may be impossible but the honest and explicit intention to recall all and confess them, is required. I cannot obtain absolution if I confess without this explicit desire to recall all sins and obtain absolution for all sins, even those that I forget. Or, at lest, this is what I am being taught. Explicit intention is key.

But my point was that, if an explicit intention is key for confession, then also an explicit intention must be key for baptism.

This would open the possibility of Bod to a very limited number of cases (*)¹ and confirm the exclusion for souls who: (a) know of Christianity and of the sacrament of baptism but do not explicitly desire it or have the explicit intention and (b) do not even know of the existence of Christianity and the sacrament of baptism and therefore have no explicit intention.

(*)¹ a soul who knows about the sacrament of baptism and explicitly desires it but dies before he can obtain it.

Indeed, you have to have sincere contrition for and the intention to confess every mortal sin; in other words, you can't be deliberately hiding or holding back on any.

Certainly, if there is such a thing as BoD, then I believe that an explicit intention would be necessary. If you look at what Trent taught about Confession, initially the text read that perfect contrition sufficed to restore a soul to justification. But the Pope, inspired by the Holy Spirit, intervened and insisted that the condition also of intending to confess the sin be added as necessary. And that is what Trent taught infallibly. Certainly the intention to confess could be read implicitly into perfect contrition. I mean, if you're perfectly contrite, then you implicitly also would intend to make whatever act of reparation God requires, including Confession. So this notion that the intention to confess would be implicit in perfect contrition was rejected by Trent for Confession. So why should we imagine that an implicit intention could suffice for Baptism ... when Trent taught that it does NOT suffice for confession? There's no reason to believe this, and it's a huge stretch. So you raise a very important point that I had not completely thought through before.

PS ... too many Traditional Catholics falsely believe that one need only have perfect contrition to be restored to a state of justification. But Trent teaches that this does not suffice but must be combined with the intention to confess those sins as soon as it is reasonably possible.

I've used this analogy before, for Baptism, but it also applies to Confession. We have a man who loves a woman deeply, proposes (and she accepts), sets a date, rents out a hall, sends out invitations, and schedules everything with the priest. But now, 5 minutes before the actual vows, he gets cold feet and bails out. Despite ALL his intentions, he was never married. So, with Confession also ... and Baptism. I can be deeply sorry, but unless I intend (vow, even) to go to Confession, then I'm not really sorry and am not restored to a state of grace (per Trent). And, so also with Baptism. Even if one believes that Trent taught BoD, the word Trent uses is votum, which in Medieval Latin meant a solemn vow (like the ones pronounced at marriage or by a religious) ... and our word "vow" derives from this word as well. There is no indication anywhere among the Church doctors or in the Magisterium that BoD can ever apply to anyone other than a catechumen.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #185 on:** February 08, 2020, 10:37:56 AM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 08, 2020, 09:48:57 AM

Okay, let’s apply the reasoning of your private interpretation of this canon to another canon from the same council and see what conclusions, if any, we can draw. Put your private interpretation cap on as we review Canon VI on Penance.

CANON VI.--If any one denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law, or is necessary to salvation; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

If we use the Fr. Feeney/Protestant approach here, which necessarily entails disregarding anything and everything the Popes, theologians, and "fallible catechisms" have taught about this subject, this canon clearly means no one can be saved without receiving the sacrament of confession. Not only does that mean those who fall into mortal sin after baptism cannot be saved without sacramental confession (perfect contrition wouldn’t suffice), but it also means those below the age of reason who never sinned can’t be saved without it.

Do you believe baptized children who die below the age of reason, without ever having received the sacrament of confession, can be saved, or do you believe what the infallible decree of the Council of Trent teaches?

Another problem is that that if we believe this canon as you to the equivalent canon on baptism, we run into a contradiction. If the Blessed Mother was free from all actual sin she never had anything to confess, and therefore could not have received the sacrament of confession (since one requirement for the sacrament is contrition for sin). How can we believe the dogma that the Blessed Mother he was assumed into heaven, while at the same time believing the infallible canon from Trent saying the sacrament is confession is necessary for salvation?

With regard to your later example of Our Lady, it's obvious that the context (as explained in the main expository text of Trent) is that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary for salvation ... for those who had fallen from their baptismal state of justification. But otherwise, you are quite wrong. It IS in fact the Sacrament of Confession that is necessary for salvation. What non-Sacramental confession could exist that even Our Lady could have? Confession is not some weak metaphor for "loving God" or some other such nonsense. So it is in fact the Sacrament that is necessary.

Now, with that said, there is an out that would excuse BoDers from heresy, and I hinted at this earlier. When a person has perfect contrition AND has the intention or will to confess his sins, the Sacrament of Confession indeed remains necessary. How could one DESIRE/INTEND Confession without there being, ehm, a Confession to desire? Consequently, I agree (against the Dimonds) that Baptism of Desire is not rendered heretical based upon the teaching of Trent that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. So I think this is kindof what you were grasping at, but it's not correct to say that the SACRAMENTS are not necessary for salvation. That WOULD indeed be heretical. So, does it suffice to receive the Sacrament in voto?

I argue that what suffices for Confession does not suffice for Baptism. Why? Because of essence in the Sacrament is the CHARACTER it bestows. It is this character that incorporates into the Church and renders souls recognizable as adopted sons of God. So, for instance, there can be no "Confirmation of desire" nor any "Holy Orders of desire". While certainly SOME of the graces bestowed by confirmation can be received in different ways, the full effect of the Sacrament cannot be had. No man has ever become a priest by desiring it. In other words, with the character Sacraments, the effect of the Sacrament cannot be had by desire. So one cannot prove Baptism of Desire from what Trent taught about Confession. What's at issue is .... WHAT does the character of Baptism actually do or provide? Most have written off the character as just a "badge or honor" or a "non-repeatability marker" or something. But that is not the actual explanation. So the question is really: is the CHARACTER of Baptism essential for salvation? I hold that it is. I won't digress into all my arguments here, but just wanted to frame the question.

Stubborn · « **Reply #186 on:** February 08, 2020, 10:38:03 AM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 08, 2020, 09:48:57 AM

Okay, let’s apply the reasoning of your private interpretation of this canon to another canon from the same council and see what conclusions, if any, we can draw. Put your private interpretation cap on as we review Canon VI on Penance.....

Ok, we have gone way off base.

Rather than me refuting your points, then you refute mine, next thing you know ad hominems are flung at each other and we end up getting nowhere, just answer my original query.........I wanted you to address specifically the contradiction to dogma, scripture and what the Church has always taught, but all you did was the same thing all BODers do - come back with contrary teachings as if they are taught by the Church, and I got sucked in and started the same tired old debate process with you. I want to get away from that.

I hope to move slowly and avoid book length posts by moving only step by step....

The first item I'd like you to address is:

Canon IV of Trent begins by saying that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation, and ends by saying the sacraments or the desire thereof are necessary for justification. Certainly you nor anyone can possibly disagree with this. But if you do, then explain why you disagree with what it says.

I mean Trent just said the sacrament is necessary unto salvation, but you say it isn't. To all people in the English speaking world, by definition *that* is a contradiction. I assume you agree that a BOD is not a sacrament, if so, do you see the contradiction to the dogma by saying that one who dies without the sacrament is in fact saved?

Praeter · « **Reply #187 on:** February 08, 2020, 10:59:55 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 08, 2020, 10:38:03 AM

I mean Trent just said the sacrament is necessary unto salvation, but you say it isn't. To all people in the English speaking world, by definition *that* is a contradiction.

Stubborn, do you believe the sacrament of confession is necessary for salvation? Yes or no.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #188 on:** February 08, 2020, 11:08:23 AM »

The Council of Trent itself clearly teaches the doctrine of Baptism of Desire Dogmatically, for it speaks of the voto of Baptism, which is nothing other than Baptism of Desire, as can be seen by comparison with the voto of Penance and the voto of the Eucharist, which is Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion respectively. Next, the Fathers of Trent teach a catechumen can obtain grace and justice by his desire to be baptized and contrition for past sins in the Roman Catechism of Trent; the Code of Canon Law gives the authorized interpretation of the same Church that Baptism, or its voto, is necessary for salvation. Thus, in no time at all, one can think of three dogmatic, doctrinal and authoritative Church sources that teach us most plainly the Sacred Doctrine or Dogma of Baptism of Desire. St. Alphonsus says Baptism of Desire is likely de fide. Hence, he who denies it, after it has been solemnly taught by the Church, is like he who denies the Sacred Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, after it has been taught us by the Church, and can therefore be justly regarded as a heretic in the external forum by Roman Catholics; provided that he is truly obstinate, and entirely unwilling to listen to the Church, though not otherwise.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #189 on:** February 08, 2020, 11:34:09 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 08, 2020, 11:08:23 AM

The Council of Trent itself clearly teaches the doctrine of Baptism of Desire Dogmatically, for it speaks of the voto of Baptism

It most certainly does not. What does Trent say about the votum? That [initial] justification cannot happen without it. CANNOT HAPPEN WITHOUT [it] does not equate to CAN HAPPEN WITH it ALONE. There's no positive definition along the lines of SOULS CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY it ALONE. Period.

Again, I don't care if you want to believe in Baptism of Desire for catechumens, but stop promoting this heretical garbage that infidels can be saved.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #190 on:** February 08, 2020, 11:42:44 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 08, 2020, 11:08:23 AM

Next, the Fathers of Trent teach a catechumen can obtain grace and justice by his desire to be baptized and contrition for past sins in the Roman Catechism of Trent; ...

No, it does not. Roman Catechism states that the delay of Baptism for adults to be properly catechized is appropriate given that if they truly desire Baptism, they will not be prevented by some mishap from receiving it. This echos the exact the language of St. Fulgentius, who proceeds to say that God will allow them to persevere until the Sacrament.

Again, however, if you want to believe in BoD for the "catechumen," and stop there, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. But you need to stop spreadiing and condoning the pernicious heresy that infidels, heretics, and schismatics can be saved.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #191 on:** February 08, 2020, 12:06:37 PM »

Quote

stop promoting this heretical garbage that infidels can be saved.

You're a faithless liar, a lying heretic. I teach that only Christians with explicit faith in Christ are saved. I teach, with Pope St. Pius X and St. Alphonsus Maria, that perfect love of God, or contrition, with the desire of the Sacraments, immediately justifies. You're an obstinate heretic, and obstinate heretics like you cannot be saved, unless you return to the Church, and publicly retract your heresies before a Bishop.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #192 on:** February 08, 2020, 12:17:15 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 08, 2020, 12:06:37 PM

You're a faithless liar, a lying heretic. I teach that only Christians with explicit faith in Christ are saved.

You lying sack of excrement. You JUST STARTED a thread promoting the exact opposite, de Lugo's verbatim rejecting of the teaching of Florence.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #193 on:** February 08, 2020, 01:20:07 PM »

Quote

I said clearly an Act of Contrition for Justification.

As has been said to you multiple times, this is NOT what Trent says. You can quote every saint who ever lived, and every theolgy manual ever written, and it doesn’t change the DOCTRINE of Trent.
.
A cafeteria-catholic picks and chooses which morals to follow, of which you are not one, as you seem to be moral. But you are definitely a library-catholic, who picks and chooses their theology based on which books they like. That’s scarier because it mixes intelligence with error, just like at V2. Plenty like you out there. Lord help us!

Stubborn · « **Reply #194 on:** February 08, 2020, 01:21:42 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 08, 2020, 10:59:55 AM

Stubborn, do you believe the sacrament of confession is necessary for salvation? Yes or no.

This is completely ignoring, not answering my simple question.

The answer to your question is YES, as Trent teaches, it is "necessary for all who have fallen after baptism."

Will you answer my question to you? Please accept that I have no interest whatsoever in debating the idea of a BOD itself, only if you see can for the contradiction that it is to this dogma as decreed at Trent.

Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15462 times)

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Nishant Xavier

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

ascanio1

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Nishant Xavier

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Nishant Xavier

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Stubborn

Re: EENS for baptized Christians