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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 31

Author Topic: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD  (Read 22193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2022, 12:59:34 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 15, 2022, 11:54:01 AM
The point being, one has to understand the Trinity/incarnation as they relate to, and are connected to, the Church.  An unbaptized  person who rejects the Church/papacy cannot have BOD because if you reject the Church, you also reject Her sacraments.  That’s why only a catechumen can have BOD because to truly want baptism, you have to truly want the Church.  To separate baptism from the Church is a modernist heresy. 
Yes! I like the way St. Thomas puts it......

St. Thomas Aquinas' Catechetical Instructions (pdf attached):

"When a man is baptised the first question that is asked him is: "Do you believe in God?" This is because Baptism is the first Sacrament of faith. Hence, the Lord said: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved.Baptism without  faith is of no value."

Which reminds me that that's yet *another* thing BODers either ignore or know nothing about - namely, the Church's procedures and rubrics for baptism. It seems if they trouble themselves to concern themselves about it at all, all they ever concern themselves with is the emergency rubrics which can be administered by literally anyone using the water from a puddle, but this is a among the rarest of occurrences, it's not the rule.

The fact is, the Church has very strict rules that are required for the recipient - adult or infant, and a set of rubrics for her baptismal ceremony that must be followed. For infants for example, the sponsors must give [the correct] answers for the infant or the Church will not baptize it. 

Through the parents and sponsors, the Church presumes an infant baptized in the Church has and will be raised in the faith - that is the reason they must answer for the infant. The proper disposition is presumed through the sponsors who take the baptismal vows and promises on behalf, in place of, and for the child. The sponsors vow that the child wants the Catholic faith and will be raised in the Catholic faith, in doing this, they answer for the child that the child has the "proper disposition" or the desire to be baptized. Without this, the priest cannot baptize the infant.

The parents and sponsors are promising *for* the infant, promising on behalf of the infant that the infant wants to be baptized, wants the faith, wants to be Catholic, wants eternal life and on and on - in a sense, they must convince the Church to baptize their infant by vowing for the infant that he will be raised a Catholic, or the priest cannot baptize him.
Logged

Offline In Principio

Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #131 on: July 16, 2022, 01:40:18 PM »
Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 15, 2022, 09:20:57 AM
You would really have to twist his words to get BOD out of that...

"SEE? St. Alphonsus says "desire" at the end of a sentence including "baptism"!" It's the same error of reading into what Trent says while ignoring syntax and context. :facepalm:

You wouldn't need to twist his words to see he teaches BOD, you would just need to read the next paragraph (#13).  Here, he states that Soave thought the fathers didn't even require an implicit desire of baptism to be justified.  St. Alphonsus rejects this, then goes on to teach implicit BOD as certain.


Quote
11. Can. 4: Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non siut, anathema sit." 

12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible.  Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire (in voto).

13. Soave says that at least the implicit desire of Baptism (the same holds for penance in regards to sinners) appeared to many of the fathers not to be necessary for justification: because Cornelius and the good thief were justified without having any knowledge of Baptism.  But, Pallavicini says that this is a mere dream of Soave: for the theologians of Trent could not have adduced the example of Cornelius or of the good thief in defence of such an opinion, when everyone knew that the obligation of Baptism did not commence till after the death of the Saviour, and after the promulgation of the Gospel.  Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist.  He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment.  In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.

14. In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted.  By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments.

St. Alphonsus also understood the Coucil of Trent to be teaching BOD in Session 6, Chapter 4 (St. Robert Bellarmine understood it the same way).  It's one thing to say Trent didn't teach BOD, and that this means something like "without a spoke or wheel".  It's quite another for anyone to say it so clearly doesn't teach BOD that it can't be misunderstood to be teaching it, when this would mean the two greatest Doctors of the Church after Trent misunderstood something so clear that it can't be misunderstood.


Quote
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
- Theologia Moralis, Lib.VI, Tract.II, Cap.I, no. 95-97

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #132 on: July 16, 2022, 01:59:51 PM »
Quote from: In Principio on July 16, 2022, 01:40:18 PM
You wouldn't need to twist his words to see he teaches BOD, you would just need to read the next paragraph (#13).

You miss his point.  We know St. Alphonsus believed in a Baptism of Desire that sufficed for justification.  His point is that BoDers are often caught distorting passing and reading stuff into them that isn't thee.

At the same time, however, St. Alphonsus held that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.  So either he's contradicting himself or else he too is making the justification vs. salvation distinction that was prevalent at the time.  There are other theologians who believed the same thing, that infidels could be justified, but not saved (de Lugo is the one that comes to mind).
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #133 on: July 16, 2022, 02:08:49 PM »
This citation above from St. Alphonsus is obviously in error:
Quote
Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

Trent did not teach that "no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire of it.'".  Trent taught that no one can be JUSTIFIED.  So that's already an error right out of the gate.

It's interesting also that he (wrongly) cites "de presbytero non baptizto" as if it were a dogmatic source.  Yet that source clearly indicates that someone who's saved by BoD would go to Heaven immediately and without delay.  But St. Alphonsus said that this was not true, but held that temporal punishment due to sin remained after BoD.  Well, if that's a dogmatic source, then St. Alphonsus' theory is heretical.

Finally, he speaks of people who have BoD as being regenerated.  Problem with that is that Trent defines "regeneration" at initial justification (a rebirth) as wiping out all sin and punishment due to sin, so that no stain or guilt of sin remains or any punishment due to sin.  So that too renders St. Alphonsus theory that temporal punishment remains after BoD heretical.

As per usual, BoD results in nothing but confusion and chaos and contradiction and error.

I supposed than in his "spiritual" works, St. Alphonsus was just blatantly lying when he wrote that for those born among the infidels "ALL are lost".  Or perhaps it was just pious hyperbole.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Father Feeney on Trent (Session VI, Chapter 4) or the Catechism of Trent on BOD
« Reply #134 on: July 16, 2022, 02:22:30 PM »
Lots of bizarre things about "de presbytero non baptizato".  Apart from the fact that how can you have an unbaptized priest, Innocent "asserts without hesitation that ... this priest [went to heaven]" ... continuing to call him a priest, and somehow declaring that this man went to Heaven.  I guess we should immediately canonize this priest, since we have Innocent III's authority for it.  Then he "asserts without hesitation" [that this priest is in Heaven] "based on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose".  He does not teach it, but rather "asserts" (as if he were in a debate and opining in favor of it) nor is this letter addressed to the universal Church, and does not teach it by the authority of Sts Peter and Paul, i.e. his papal teaching authority, but on the authority of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose.  So now Augustine and Ambrose have the authority to define a dogma?  Of course, he's mistaken in appealing to that authority, since St. Augustine never taught it with authority, but rather clearly indicated that it was his own speculation, and retracted it later in life, and St. Ambrose didn't teach it at all (that's a misreading of his oration on Valentinian).  In a similar letter, Innocent proclaimed that the consecration at Mass would be valid if a priest merely thought the words but did not say them out loud.

Not only does this "de presbyter non baptizato" not meet the notes of infallibility, where the Pope is teaching something with HIS Apostolic authority, the authority of St. Peter, and teaching something to the Universal Church, that must be believed.  He's leaning on the authority of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, who have no authority to define doctrine for the Church, and is clearly opining ("assert" to does not mean to teach authoritatively, but merely to argue or to opine).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 31
« previous next »