Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby

Once people accept that God gets Baptism for all His elect, the problem of bod goes away.  

Now, some say bod is a 'baptism' of sorts.  As we all know, by bod's and Baptism's distinct and diametrically opposed definitions, that is simply not true.

Diametrically opposed??  Boy do you live out in left field!!

The Sacrament of Baptism cleanses a soul from original sin, putting it in the state of sanctifying grace, among other things. The Church says that baptism of desire does likewise, minus the other things. Either way, on is saved dying in that state.

You are stating things quite contrary to what the Church teaches.

Actually the theologians who posit BoD like St. Alphonse's say that a person saved in such a way would have the tempora punishment due to sin remain and it would have to be expiated in purgatory.

Now isn't that interesting? The grace of baptism remits all sin and all punishment due. But the theologians say BoD remits all guilt but not temporal punishment.

How then is this possible and what grace is this? It is not regeneration by definition. What then is it?

I said minus other things, didn't I?  Yes.

A person dying in that state is SAVED, which is the whole point of these discussions.

Stop, wait. The entire point of BoD is that the grace of baptism can be supplied in different ways, either BoD or BoB. Now you implicitly admit BoD does not remit the temporal punishment due to sin whereas baptism does. There is therefore something unique about the sacrament of baptism that cannot be supplied by even an explicit vow to receive it, and that is the remission of temporal punishment.

But if the grace of regeneration is bound up with the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, and baptism alone can remit the temporal punishment due to sin, then we see that those justified by BoD do not receive the grace of regeneration which is distinct from justification.

A man who is baptized and commits mortal sin is in a state of damnation. But when he is justified by confession, he is not regenerated again. He is justified anew. But the temporal punishment remains. Effectively this is what BoD does, it posits the justification of penance for those who have never been regenerated.

But it is only those who have the character of baptism who can be justified in this way and have temporal punishment remain. Therefore BoD is erroneous.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12714a.htm

A you a practicing Catholic, or not. I see people like you who cease practicing and them decide to come to Catholic forums to get their jollies and smooth over their hurting consciences.

The CHURCH says that adults can be saved by baptism of desire. You are arguing with the Church!

 

The CHURCH says no such thing.  People say it.  And by every argument posited here and every related infallible doctrine, bod is the flower of misunderstanding and extrapolation.

You have abandoned practicing as a Catholic then? Do you go to Mass each Sunday?

This is the most obvious red herring in the world. Stick to the theology and the arguments. No ad hominem.

"Adhering strictly to the Bible and tradition, the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, capp. iii-iv, in Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 1908, nn. 795-6) regarded regeneration as fundamentally nothing else than another name for the justification acquired through the Sacrament of Baptism."

Are those justified in BoD Regenerated?

Do you know what the fallacy of begging the question means? Look it up.

The Church clearly says at Trent and elsewhere that baptism of desire can save an adult. You are arguing with the Church. Very serious.

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

The Church clearly says at Trent and elsewhere that baptism of desire can save an adult. You are arguing with the Church. Very serious.

No it doesn't, it says they can't be saved without desire for baptism, I.e. The necessary dispositions that follow in the very next chapter. Look it up. One of the requirements of an efficacious baptism is the sincere resolve to receive it.

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

The Church clearly says at Trent and elsewhere that baptism of desire can save an adult. You are arguing with the Church. Very serious.

No it doesn't, it says they can't be saved without desire for baptism, I.e. The necessary dispositions that follow in the very next chapter. Look it up. One of the requirements of an efficacious baptism is the sincere resolve to receive it.

It's absolutely clear what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says about how the dangers of delaying baptism for infants is not the same for adults. Death for infants without baptism makes it impossible for them to go to heaven but not so with adults:

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted, to take care their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can done with safety, to receive solemn baptism: infants, unless baptised, cannot enter heaven, and hence we may well conceive how deep the enormity of their guilt, who, through negligence, suffer them to remain without the grace of the sacrament, longer than necessity may require; particularly at age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

....nor is the delay attended with the same danger, as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, avail them to grace and righteousness."[/font]

Note the absence of the word death.

It is true should any unforeseen accident, like a flat tire or a car crash or rescheduling, prevent them from receiving, they shouldn't worry. If they are sincere God will get them baptized, for their good disposition will avail them to justification which they in faith should believe God will complete in them in the waters of baptism.

Funny thing is, two paragraphs later:

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."

Which is what I just said.

AND:

"Necessity of Baptism

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Infant Baptism: It's Necessity

That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers."

So is the catechism self-contradictory? Or are you just interpreting it discordantly?

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

The Church clearly says at Trent and elsewhere that baptism of desire can save an adult. You are arguing with the Church. Very serious.

No it doesn't, it says they can't be saved without desire for baptism, I.e. The necessary dispositions that follow in the very next chapter. Look it up. One of the requirements of an efficacious baptism is the sincere resolve to receive it.

It's absolutely clear what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says about how the dangers of delaying baptism for infants is not the same for adults. Death for infants without baptism makes it impossible for them to go to heaven but not so with adults:

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted, to take care their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can done with safety, to receive solemn baptism: infants, unless baptised, cannot enter heaven, and hence we may well conceive how deep the enormity of their guilt, who, through negligence, suffer them to remain without the grace of the sacrament, longer than necessity may require; particularly at age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

....nor is the delay attended with the same danger, as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, avail them to grace and righteousness."[/font]

Note the absence of the word death.

It is true should any unforeseen accident, like a flat tire or a car crash or rescheduling, prevent them from receiving, they shouldn't worry. If they are sincere God will get them baptized, for their good disposition will avail them to justification which they in faith should believe God will complete in them in the waters of baptism.

Funny thing is, two paragraphs later:

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."

Which is what I just said.

AND:

"Necessity of Baptism

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Infant Baptism: It's Necessity

That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers."

So is the catechism self-contradictory? Or are you just interpreting it discordantly?

Maybe you should go see a head doctor.

The word "death" is right there when talking about the danger for infants, and then in the adult section mentions, "same danger, as in the case of infants".  

Duh.

And that's they way ALL have comprehended it since it was published in the 16th century.

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

The Church clearly says at Trent and elsewhere that baptism of desire can save an adult. You are arguing with the Church. Very serious.

No it doesn't, it says they can't be saved without desire for baptism, I.e. The necessary dispositions that follow in the very next chapter. Look it up. One of the requirements of an efficacious baptism is the sincere resolve to receive it.

It's absolutely clear what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says about how the dangers of delaying baptism for infants is not the same for adults. Death for infants without baptism makes it impossible for them to go to heaven but not so with adults:

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted, to take care their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can done with safety, to receive solemn baptism: infants, unless baptised, cannot enter heaven, and hence we may well conceive how deep the enormity of their guilt, who, through negligence, suffer them to remain without the grace of the sacrament, longer than necessity may require; particularly at age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

....nor is the delay attended with the same danger, as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, avail them to grace and righteousness."[/font]

Note the absence of the word death.

It is true should any unforeseen accident, like a flat tire or a car crash or rescheduling, prevent them from receiving, they shouldn't worry. If they are sincere God will get them baptized, for their good disposition will avail them to justification which they in faith should believe God will complete in them in the waters of baptism.

Funny thing is, two paragraphs later:

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."

Which is what I just said.

AND:

"Necessity of Baptism

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Infant Baptism: It's Necessity

That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers."

So is the catechism self-contradictory? Or are you just interpreting it discordantly?

Maybe you should go see a head doctor.

The word "death" is right there when talking about the danger for infants, and then in the adult section mentions, "same danger, as in the case of infants".  

Duh.

And that's they way ALL have comprehended it since it was published in the 16th century.

Exactly, it's not attended with the same danger, death, the danger infants had a lot of then with less medicines etc. And this is why it could be justly delayed for instruction on the case of adults, they had gotten over their weaker years. However in case of accident where the reception becomes impossible (is this impossibility circuмstantial or absolute? It doesn't say), the intended recipient shouldn't worry because their intention puts them on the path of justification.

BUT this justification is NOT yet complete. It is in a state of unfulfillment. Regeneration is only the crowning effect of water baptism. We know this because man is not regenerated in penance, but only justified. So the question becomes, "What did the Doctors of the Church and dogmas teach?"

Consider the council of Florence:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself.

And Trent says:  

Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5: “FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”

But St. Thomas says-

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 2, Reply to Obj. 2: “If therefore a catechumen has the desire for baptism… then such a one departing [or dying] does not immediately attain eternal life but will suffer punishment for past sins.  Nevertheless he himself will be saved in this way as though through fire, as stated in 1 Cor. III.”

And St. Alphonse says:

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.”  (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)

So there is a discrepancy, once again. Supposedly BoD supplies the grace of the sacrament, but this consists in the remission of all sin and the guilt due to sin and its temporal punishment.

But BoD according to its most popular advocates doesn't do that. So it doesn't regenerate but places a man in a state of incomplete justification. Is that alone enough to get to heaven? I posit such people will be brought to baptism or were not intended to be saved.

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby

So Bumph, do you also deny that God gets Baptism for all His elect?  Remember now, Baptism and bod have different definitions and properties, so don't presume to insert bod here, it doesn't apply.    

Naturally, you true Catholics, champions of Baptism and Church doctrine...notice that he won't answer the question directly because he cannot answer it and still hold bod.   If he denies it, he runs against St. Robert Bellarmine and scripture at the very least. If he admits it, the discussion ended and he finally agrees with Church teaching.  Rather, he will be forced by his erroneous convictions to wallow in ad hominem or deflect. You're all tired and bored of it, but watch the inevitable...

It has been said here already that baptism of desire, though not the Sacraments, participates in that particular Sacrament. Anyone obtaining faith and sanctifying grace is part of the elect.

The quote by the Roman Catechism is very clear that adults can go to heaven without baptism by water. You are once again arguing with the Church. Very serious.

You just fell into Calvinism, "Anyone obtaining faith and sanctifying grace is part of the elect."

False. For a person can lose their justification and will demonstrate that they were reprobate if they die this way. This is the perseverance of the saints heresy espoused by Calvin, that all who are justified necessarily persevere and are elect. The Catholic teaching is that some who are just fall away from their justice.

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby

So Bumph, do you also deny that God gets Baptism for all His elect?  Remember now, Baptism and bod have different definitions and properties, so don't presume to insert bod here, it doesn't apply.    

Naturally, you true Catholics, champions of Baptism and Church doctrine...notice that he won't answer the question directly because he cannot answer it and still hold bod.   If he denies it, he runs against St. Robert Bellarmine and scripture at the very least. If he admits it, the discussion ended and he finally agrees with Church teaching.  Rather, he will be forced by his erroneous convictions to wallow in ad hominem or deflect. You're all tired and bored of it, but watch the inevitable...

It has been said here already that baptism of desire, though not the Sacraments, participates in that particular Sacrament. Anyone obtaining faith and sanctifying grace is part of the elect.

The quote by the Roman Catechism is very clear that adults can go to heaven without baptism by water. You are once again arguing with the Church. Very serious.

You just fell into Calvinism, "Anyone obtaining faith and sanctifying grace is part of the elect."

False. For a person can lose their justification and will demonstrate that they were reprobate if they die this way. This is the perseverance of the saints heresy espoused by Calvin, that all who are justified necessarily persevere and are elect. The Catholic teaching is that some who are just fall away from their justice.

Wrong. You fall into the fallacy of begging the question. Anyone who is saved, is a Catholic. And the A Catholic Dictionary says that Catholics are the Elect, buy the most common sense of the term:

"ELECT, THE.  Those chosen by God either (a) for the grace of faith and the true religion (the most common sense), or (b) for eternal glory. "

Someone was kind enough to send me the original Latin, and this passage in Trent represents yet another butchered translation (probably to further an agenda).

Quote

...qui rationis usu praediti sint, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum, atque consilium, & male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam, & iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quominus salutari aqua ablui possint

There's nothing here whatsoever about "impossibility", as the Latin impediat means to hindred or obstruct.  It's actually rather bad Latin, but the sense is clear.  It should be translated as follows:

"[these proper dispositions] would suffice to see them through any sudden event/mishap that might get in the way of their being able to be cleansed/washed with the saving water", see them through "to grace and justice" -- I just put that last part last not to interrupt the flow.

In other words, it's saying basically that God would not let anything get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament of Baptism if they have the proper dispositions.

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: BumphreyHogart

Quote from: happenby

So Bumph, do you also deny that God gets Baptism for all His elect?  Remember now, Baptism and bod have different definitions and properties, so don't presume to insert bod here, it doesn't apply.    

Naturally, you true Catholics, champions of Baptism and Church doctrine...notice that he won't answer the question directly because he cannot answer it and still hold bod.   If he denies it, he runs against St. Robert Bellarmine and scripture at the very least. If he admits it, the discussion ended and he finally agrees with Church teaching.  Rather, he will be forced by his erroneous convictions to wallow in ad hominem or deflect. You're all tired and bored of it, but watch the inevitable...

It has been said here already that baptism of desire, though not the Sacraments, participates in that particular Sacrament. Anyone obtaining faith and sanctifying grace is part of the elect.

The quote by the Roman Catechism is very clear that adults can go to heaven without baptism by water. You are once again arguing with the Church. Very serious.

You just fell into Calvinism, "Anyone obtaining faith and sanctifying grace is part of the elect."

False. For a person can lose their justification and will demonstrate that they were reprobate if they die this way. This is the perseverance of the saints heresy espoused by Calvin, that all who are justified necessarily persevere and are elect. The Catholic teaching is that some who are just fall away from their justice.

How many ways to Tuesday can this bod argument fail? Boom.