Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire (Read 35679 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #65 on:** March 19, 2014, 09:38:14 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Cantarella:

What about this infallible dogmatic statement?

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

The passage above is actually dealing with Justification, not Salvation. They are different. One can be initially justified and then go and condemn oneself anyway. Justification is the very initial transition. Salvation is the end when finally one is inserted into Christ for ever. Justification occurs on earth. Salvation is our entrance to Heaven. The dogma defended is : Unless you are baptized in water and Holy Ghost you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven (Salvation).

Besides, in the mentioned passage, the Church is simply teaching what cannot be lacking for justification at this point, not what is sufficient for its attainment. That is why this passage should not be used by BODers to defend their position. The Church is teaching here that Justification cannot be effected without the desire for Baptism.

This translation (to Justification) cannot take place without the laver (water) of regeneration or the desire to receive it. The Church is clearly not telling us at this point what will effect Justification (let alone Salvation), but rather stating a necessity (of desire) for Justification to occur.

Simply stating that an element (in this case, desire for Baptism) cannot be missing in order for something to happen (Justification) is NOT the same than stating that the element being present will be sufficient to effect that Justification.

Stubborn · « **Reply #66 on:** March 19, 2014, 09:55:33 PM »

Quote from: Mathieu

I think he has more weight than you do and I do not think he violates Vatican I, because no good Catholic ever would take a Dogma out of context. Concerning this particular topic, I think people are more focused on being right and not on being holy.

St. Alphonsus lived from 1696 - 1787.
The First Vatican Council 1868 - 1870

St. Alphonsus was clearly teaching his opinion of the decrees of Trent - and in the process even contradicted himself as we see one time he says only heretics say no sacrament is necessary and another time he says salvation can be had without the sacrament. This is fact and only fools who've blinded themselves will refuse to admit it.

His teachings were clearly trying to expand on what Trent actually said, but certainly anyone can see that some 100 years after the saint's death, V1 infallibly put an end to the practice of "interpreting" dogma, and from that time on, all are bound to maintain the exact meaning which has once been declared by holy mother church - period.

Again, if St. Alphonsus were to have been alive at the time of V1 and knew that the council infallibly declared that dogmas are to be understood "as declared", there is no way he would have done what BODers here continue to do - namely, twist the meaning of the infallible teachings to suit themselves - even after knowing that V1 binds us to understand dogma as they are declared.

From V1 on, no one is permitted to interpret any dogma for any reason. When Trent says the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation and that the sacrament of baptism is not optional - no one is permitted to add: "except in case of necessity" - or the actual sacrament can be replaced by the desire for the sacrament.

Quote from: Mathieu

I believe everyone on this site is trying his best to deal with an unprecedented crisis and apostasy, and I think there needs to be a little more mercy and understanding and a lot less condemnation.

Perhaps the tone of some posts sound condemning, but when constantly dealing with outright dishonest opponents as most of the BODer participants here are, mercy and understanding will be in short supply.

The challenge I offered 3 months ago was, IMO, the best way to wake up the avid BODers - so they could see for themselves that it is impossible for them to defend the sacraments, because if they were honest, they would either admit, at least to themselves that they do not believe the sacraments are a necessity at all, as such, that they cannot defend that which they despise.

I hoped it was a means to show themselves they are in deep error since certainly they know it is a strictly Catholic thing to defend the necessity of the sacraments - - so if you cannot get yourself to do that, then you should be able to discover that there is a major malfunction within your own belief and thinking.

But, it hasn't worked, not yet any way.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #67 on:** March 19, 2014, 09:57:35 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mathieu
Quote from: Stubborn
No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:

Quote
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?

To say that he did something that was later condemned by Vatican I means that before 1870 no one previously understood that Dogmas were to be taken at face value? That someone of his holiness and calibre would attempt to twist a Dogma to his own agenda? Every good Catholic already knew and followed this: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." It was nothing new - any well-intentioned Catholic would always believe a Dogma in exactly the way the Church intended. It was defined to arrest the onslaught of those who in bad faith tried to corrupt the innocent.

St. Alphonsus was a man who had a profound love for God and had an intelligence most likely superior to everyone on this forum put together. It is unreasonable to think that he was looking to interpret the Dogma in a different light from what was previously stated.

That being said, if, as you say, St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, where, then does that place him?

Do you deny that St. Alphonsus as well as all the others who preached a BOD did so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding or John 3:5 and / or Trent?

Do you think the saints have authority over the Councils?

This is the exact understanding of John 3:5 that the Church has supplied

Everyone is on the same page except you.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #68 on:** March 19, 2014, 10:19:07 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: andysloan
To Cantarella:

What about this infallible dogmatic statement?

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

The passage above is actually dealing with Justification, not Salvation. They are different. One can be initially justified and then go and condemn oneself anyway. Justification is the very initial transition. Salvation is the end when finally one is inserted into Christ for ever. Justification occurs on earth. Salvation is our entrance to Heaven. The dogma defended is : Unless you are baptized in water and Holy Ghost you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven (Salvation).

Besides, in the mentioned passage, the Church is simply teaching what cannot be lacking for justification at this point, not what is sufficient for its attainment. That is why this passage should not be used by BODers to defend their position. The Church is teaching here that Justification cannot be effected without the desire for Baptism.

This translation (to Justification) cannot take place without the laver (water) of regeneration or the desire to receive it. The Church is clearly not telling us at this point what will effect Justification (let alone Salvation), but rather stating a necessity (of desire) for Justification to occur.

Simply stating that an element (in this case, desire for Baptism) cannot be missing in order for something to happen (Justification) is NOT the same than stating that the element being present will be sufficient to effect that Justification.

Paul III wrote "...OR the desire...". Not "and" the desire. The implication is that justification may be obtained by one OR the other*-- when considering that all those who die in a justified state are saved, it then follows that those who die with the desire for baptism (provided that they are not in mortal sin) are saved.

The point is not that desire of baptism alone and in itself suffices to justify (which I don't think anyone has even argued) but that in so desiring baptism, one has removed an impediment to justification and, having met any and all other requirements for it, will be justified since his desire for baptism satisfies in lieu of being baptized with water.

*Obviously one who desires baptism is compelled to seek it; if he does not it is evident that he did not desire it and is therefore does not belong in our discussion.

bowler · « **Reply #69 on:** March 19, 2014, 10:49:34 PM »

To the BODer no sacrament, no explicit desire for baptism, no explicit desire to be a Catholic, no belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, none of those are required for salvation! So why do they debate 99% of the time about BOD & BOB of the catechumen?

Quote from: bowler

The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ

Dear Nishant,

DOGMA:

Quote
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.

If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.