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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 42

Author Topic: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent  (Read 24908 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM »
Quote from: JoeZ on April 16, 2018, 03:18:21 PM
Please,
where do you find this in Trent. Session 14, chapter IV teaches that man can be reconciled to God before the sacrament is actually received but this is not the same as saying without the sacrament, or that the sacrament can be had by desire. In fact it teaches that contrition is not enough and that a will for the sacrament must be present.

I'm sorry its a bit off topic, but would like to know.
God bless,
JoeZ
I said a will for the Sacrament was necessary. 
Logged

Offline JoeZ

  • Supporter
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2018, 04:01:44 PM »
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm genuinely searching for more info on the topic of receiving the sacrament of penance in voto. I'm sorry if my post looks like a challenge to your position, it was not meant to be so. If you know better on the topic I am willing to learn.

JoeZ
Logged

Offline forlorn

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2018, 04:18:11 PM »
Quote from: JoeZ on April 16, 2018, 04:01:44 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm genuinely searching for more info on the topic of receiving the sacrament of penance in voto. I'm sorry if my post looks like a challenge to your position, it was not meant to be so. If you know better on the topic I am willing to learn.

JoeZ
Well I don't see what contradicts Penance of Desire in the section you cited. Indeed it does say "before the Sacrament", and I suppose you take this to mean that the Sacrament MUST be gotten later or it's invalid? A Sacrament cannot be revoked, so I don't see how it could mean that. Rather, it's saying that the Sacrament should still be sought after either way. Regardless, perfect contrition being a substitute for Penance where it is unavailable is a very old doctrine. It's not a new innovation. 
Logged

Offline Theosist

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2018, 04:43:08 PM »
I think there is some semantic goofing around on this issue.

What is reception “in voto” anyway? Say I have perfect contrition, confess to Christ, and He says, unknown to me, “Your sins are forgiven”, well, there’s your proximate matter, form and priestly minister right there. I can rationalise how, in this case, the sacrament can be received essentially “in re” via a votum (maybe I’m wrong in this rationalisation, but whatever): in my “votum” is already implied, in actu, the matter of the sacrament,  so that Christ Himself can supply the rest. 



But with baptism of desire?  By definition nobody’s pouring flowing water onto ones head while saying the Trinitarian formula! 

It seems only marginally less nonsensical than receiving the Eucharist in voto (oh, I’m sure some theologian has tried).
Logged

Offline forlorn

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2018, 05:37:04 PM »
Quote from: Theosist on April 16, 2018, 04:43:08 PM
I think there is some semantic goofing around on this issue.

What is reception “in voto” anyway? Say I have perfect contrition, confess to Christ, and He says, unknown to me, “Your sins are forgiven”, well, there’s your proximate matter, form and priestly minister right there. I can rationalise how, in this case, the sacrament can be received essentially “in re” via a votum (maybe I’m wrong in this rationalisation, but whatever): in my “votum” is already implied, in actu, the matter of the sacrament,  so that Christ Himself can supply the rest.



But with baptism of desire?  By definition nobody’s pouring flowing water onto ones head while saying the Trinitarian formula!

It seems only marginally less nonsensical than receiving the Eucharist in voto (oh, I’m sure some theologian has tried).
Hence why Trent specifically addressed and denied Baptism of desire "thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ 'unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'... let them be anathema". That is a direct refutation of BOD that is impossible for anyone with the slightest bit of self-awareness to try circuмvent that without realising the contradiction. And yet so many take a warning against metaphors as a metaphor...
Penance is a different case however. Whereas natural and true Baptism is specifically stated to be required by Trent, it's also taught in Trent and ever since that perfect contrition or unavailability of the Sacrament can allow Penance in voto. But like you said, extending that to Baptism is like extending it to Eucharist. Complete nonsense with no backing from the infallible Magisterium or dogma. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 42
« previous next »