Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire  (Read 35639 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SJB

Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #100 on: March 20, 2014, 06:41:27 PM »
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: SJB
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire ...


.


I quote St. Alphonsus referencing Trent, and you quote nobody but supply us with the picture of a cat. Is this what Br. Andre has taught you?

Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #101 on: March 20, 2014, 07:38:31 PM »
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Which three sacraments are "absolutely necessary" for salvation?

You should probably consider what the words "absolutely" and "necessary" mean before you answer.  

The Catholic Church teaches that all those who die in a state of justification are saved.  You cannot deny this, and you should retract your denial of it.  I dare you to find a source that isn't Fr. Feeney to corroborate this belief.  




I am not denying that those who die in a state of justification are saved. What I was emphasizing in the mentioned Trent quote is that we are dealing with different stages in the process of Salvation.  Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. After that, we must persevere in the state of God's grace.



Then you either do not grasp simple logic, or you mis-spoke when you said this:

Quote from: you
Justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments. He cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the indispensable Sacraments though. This is because we are under the New Law of Salvation.


If a man dies justified, he goes to Heaven.  But here you are saying that a man can be justified and NOT go to Heaven when you admit that justification can be obtained through BOD, but reserve salvation only for the justified who have received water baptism.  

Final perseverance is the grace granted man to maintain his state of justification at the moment of death.  You mention it as if it were something else.  If a man dies justified, he has been granted the grace of final perseverance.




Justification is the initial transition which must absolutely be sealed through Baptism. Never I said that Justification can be obtained through BOD. BOD simply do not exist. The whole point of my argument was that the mentioned Trent passage was talking about Justification and the elements necessary for it, not Salvation.  Again, Justification is sealed and granted to us by Baptism and only water Baptism remits Original Sin.  
 
You want to make an argument just for the sake of making an argument  :rolleyes:.

In case you missed it, here is a more educated throughout response of Ladislaus regarding your "logic" point:


Quote from: Ladislaus
Your reading of Trent is completely wrong.  You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without.  You need to read the passage in the entire context of Trent.  I used to think Trent taught BoD and therefore believed in BoD (for catechumens).  But I went back and read the ENTIRE Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it became very obvious that Trent was not teaching BoD.

Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.

Out of context, and if you didn't know what baseball was, that could be ambiguous.  Do you need BOTH or do you need ONE or the OTHER?  This could be read as "We cannot play without (either a bat or a ball)"? (in Latin you would expect a double "or", an aut ... aut type of contruction before aut bat aut ball).  But Trent doesn't use this construction.  or else "We cannot play baseball without a bat or without a ball?" (meaning that you need both).

But what if I add the sentence:

Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.

Immediately disambiguated.

Now look at Trent.

We cannot be justified without water or the will (votum = will, not just desire) for it, since Our Lord said that we cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.

Trent had just spent paragraphs discussing how the Holy Spirit acts in the soul to cause it to cooperate and to be properly disposed for the Sacrament.

Trent was teaching the relationship between the ex opere operato nature of the Sacrament which however could only confer the grace of justification with the cooperation of the will.  AGAINST THE PROTESTANT ERRORS.  So Trent is making an analogy between the votum and Our Lord's reference to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "water and the Holy Spirit".

Trent is CLEARLY teaching that BOTH the water (Sacrament) AND the cooperation / proper disposition are required for justification.  Without BOTH there is no justification.

Notice also the conspicuous absence of any mention regarding Baptism of Blood, which you would clearly expect if that's what Trent was actually intending to teach.

If you try to make the water or the desire thereof an "either ... or" proposition, then you turn the teaching of Trent into an ERROR.  Why?  Because you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WITH WATER WITHOUT THE WILL OR DISPOSITION.  If you are not properly disposed and have the Sacrament performed on you, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED.

Now let's look at some of the Canons in Trent:

Quote from: Trent
Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.


Notice how this backs up my reading of Trent.  Trent goes out of its way to say that the activity of the Holy Spirit to predispose the soul for justification is required, and to deny this is anathema.

Quote from: Trent
Canon 4.
If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.


Again, reinforcing the requirement of the will to cooperate in the grace of justification.

Quote
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.


Again, ONE MORE emphasis on the need for the cooperation of the WILL (will comes from the same root word as "votum" in the famous passage that BoDers misinterpret).

Trent was teaching on Justification against the PROTESTANT ERRORS.

So when Trent teaches about not being able to be justified without the water or the will.  It's not saying EITHER OR.  In fact, it's emphasizing that the WATER (Sacrament working ex opere operato) REQUIRES ALSO THE COOPERATION OF THE WILL (="votum", usually translated wrongly as desire) towards justification.

It's ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that Trent is teaching that BOTH WATER AND (COOPERATION OF) THE WILL are required for justification.






Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #102 on: March 20, 2014, 08:01:38 PM »
Quote from: Trent


If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man who is justified, impossible to observe; let him be anathema (Canon18)



It follows that God will ensure that the justified of the New Law gets baptized, as Christ commanded. Baptism cannot be impossible to receive for the justified, since Our Lord has both revealed and commanded Baptism as necessary for eternal salvation. It is a defined dogma of Faith and nothing that God commands is impossible to fulfill. A worthy soul who is properly disposed, will never find it impossible to receive Baptism.

Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #103 on: March 20, 2014, 08:13:43 PM »
As to what Ladislaus said, I guess we shouldn't be holding out much hope for the baptized who die before the age of reason (or the age of desire, as it were).

If BOD "simply" does not exist, then you disagree with Ladislaus who (his quoted post notwithstanding) has mentioned several times that he believes in BOD for the catechumen, just not for non-catechumens (he's quite fond of making this distinction, actually).

As SJB is wont to say, I don't think you know what you even believe.


Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire
« Reply #104 on: March 20, 2014, 09:29:44 PM »
Quote from: Mithrandylan
As to what Ladislaus said, I guess we shouldn't be holding out much hope for the baptized who die before the age of reason (or the age of desire, as it were).

If BOD "simply" does not exist, then you disagree with Ladislaus who (his quoted post notwithstanding) has mentioned several times that he believes in BOD for the catechumen, just not for non-catechumens (he's quite fond of making this distinction, actually).

As SJB is wont to say, I don't think you know what you even believe.



The baptized who die before the age of reason go straight to Heaven (they are considered part of the elect). They do not have Original Sin, having this been remitted through Baptism; and they are not guilty of actual sins since they still don't reach the age of reason.

I do know what I believe and here it is:

There has been some theological speculation and fallible Church teaching on BOD / BOB. We find it specially in what was printed after Modernism, but actually it started taking form after the Peace of Westphalia in which catholic monarchs started watering down the Faith for the purpose of co-existing with Protestant nations. Always this teaching has been in regards to catechumens and martyrs only . Never BOD has been defined de fide. No theological conclusion is a dogma of faith however certain and evident the conclusion may be when the Church has not yet defined the question through her infallible magisterium.

Whereas I don't hold the BOD belief myself in any circuмstance (for the reason presented above, about God's omnipotence and promise to the elect), I would not have a problem with the concept of BOD strictly for catechumens only (+ explicit Catholic Faith), if it had not been because it was exploited by the modernist liberals as to allow salvation for Non- Catholics.