Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent  (Read 5242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1295
  • Reputation: +601/-60
  • Gender: Male
    • TraditionalCatholic.net
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2018, 11:05:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Canon 1239 § 2
    Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
    Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1295
    • Reputation: +601/-60
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #31 on: May 29, 2018, 11:08:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
    Quote
      "I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
        "Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "

    Omnes pro Christo


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #32 on: May 29, 2018, 11:32:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Canon 1239 § 2
    Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
    Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.


    AGAIN, read the ENTIRE thing.  Cf. my previous post.

    All this is saying, injunction with the § 1 is that "Only the baptized and catechumens can receive Catholic burial.".

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #33 on: May 29, 2018, 11:34:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interestingly, there are a growing number of Catholics (including Pfeifferites) who believe that the character IS received in bod.  That original sin IS remitted, as well as the reception of justification.

    Well, that's a new one.  Do you have any sources?  If they actually hold this, they're flying in the face of St. Alphonsus and all BoD theorists before them.

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1295
    • Reputation: +601/-60
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #34 on: May 29, 2018, 11:35:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Canon 1239 § 2
    Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
    Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.
    "Catechumens are treated as if baptized, if they remained unbaptized through no fault of their own.  This does not include infants, but refers rather to would-be converts, persons under instruction or who had indicated a positive desire to begin instruction for reception into the Church." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.
    Omnes pro Christo


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #35 on: May 29, 2018, 11:37:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Catechumens are treated as if baptized, if they remained unbaptized through no fault of their own.  This does not include infants, but refers rather to would-be converts, persons under instruction or who had indicated a positive desire to begin instruction for reception into the Church." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.

    Are you dense or just bad willed?

    They are to be treated as baptized IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CANON.  You always omit § 1.

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1295
    • Reputation: +601/-60
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #36 on: May 29, 2018, 11:47:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "470 - II. Baptism of water is necessary for the attainment of salvation as an indispensable means for reaching that end. Only in exceptional cases can it be substituted by the Baptism of desire or of blood" - MORAL THEOLOGY, by Rev. Heribert Jone, O. F. M. CAP., J. C. D., and Rev. Urban Adelman, O.F. M. CAP., J. C. D.
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1295
    • Reputation: +601/-60
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #37 on: May 29, 2018, 12:03:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there? A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
     The Catechism must not be misunderstood as hereby meaning that of these three one is as good as the other to the soul. It means that in certain circumstances the baptisms of desire and of blood cause in the soul the chief effects for which the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted, viz.: the infusion of sanctifying grace.  On account of this effect they have been called Baptism, although the name, in its exact meaning, does not apply to them.  There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, and that is the baptism of water; baptism of desire and baptism of blood do not contain what constitutes the essence of a Sacrament." - CATHOLIC THEOLOGY or THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED, by Rev D. I. Lanslots, O.S.B.
    Omnes pro Christo


    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1295
    • Reputation: +601/-60
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #38 on: May 29, 2018, 12:34:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To the original poster Mega-fin - Does what I provided help with your question?

    To Ladislaus - When you say, "Are you dense or just bad willed?", this is a calumny, defined as "1. a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something. 2. the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation."  It is uncharitable.
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1022/-1610
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #39 on: May 29, 2018, 02:07:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, that's a new one.  Do you have any sources?  If they actually hold this, they're flying in the face of St. Alphonsus and all BoD theorists before them.
    Fr. Pfeiffer recently said it, and even tried to back it up.  Bod is an "aspect of Baptism" now, and the most recent modifying term, in addition to rez and voto, and all the rest of his fluminus flaminus.   

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #40 on: May 29, 2018, 03:08:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "470 - II. Baptism of water is necessary for the attainment of salvation as an indispensable means for reaching that end. Only in exceptional cases can it be substituted by the Baptism of desire or of blood" - MORAL THEOLOGY, by Rev. Heribert Jone, O. F. M. CAP., J. C. D., and Rev. Urban Adelman, O.F. M. CAP., J. C. D.

    Stop it with the obnoxious spam.  Engage in the debate.  You're as bad as LoT was.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #41 on: May 29, 2018, 03:09:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To Ladislaus - When you say, "Are you dense or just bad willed?", this is a calumny, defined as "1. a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something. 2. the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation."  It is uncharitable.

    No, it is simple fact.  I mentioned that the problem with paragraph 2 is that it's not taken in context with paragraph 1.  Then, in response, you cite paragraph 2 on its own and out of context.  This means exactly one of the two possibilities I mentioned ... or a combination thereof.

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1295
    • Reputation: +601/-60
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #42 on: May 29, 2018, 03:15:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer's article entitled "The Three Baptisms".
    http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1295
    • Reputation: +601/-60
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #43 on: May 29, 2018, 03:30:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CODEX IURIS CANONICI

    PARS PRIMA.
    DE SACRAMENTIS.


    TITULUS XII.
    De sepultura ecclesiastica.


    CAPUT III.
    De iis quibus sepultura ecclesiastica concedenda est aut neganda.


    CAN. 1239.
     § 1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
     § 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
     § 3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.

    "General Principles. Persons who die without baptism are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical burial (c. 1239, § 1).  Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be considered (in this connection) as baptized (c. 1239, § 2).  All baptized persons are to receive ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly excluded from it by law (c. 1239, § 3)." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1022/-1610
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #44 on: May 29, 2018, 06:19:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CODEX IURIS CANONICI

    PARS PRIMA.
    DE SACRAMENTIS.


    TITULUS XII.
    De sepultura ecclesiastica.


    CAPUT III.
    De iis quibus sepultura ecclesiastica concedenda est aut neganda.


    CAN. 1239.
     § 1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
     § 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
     § 3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.

    "General Principles. Persons who die without baptism are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical burial (c. 1239, § 1).  Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be considered (in this connection) as baptized (c. 1239, § 2).  All baptized persons are to receive ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly excluded from it by law (c. 1239, § 3)." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.
    How does one know whether persons who die without baptism are not at fault?  Simply because they died before they got baptism?  Who judges such a thing?  What if they took their time and didn't get Baptism when they could have?  Or seriously questioned their faith?  Denied their faith?  Didn't regret a mortal sin?  Cursed God last minute?  This canon may be in a book that's supposed to be Catholic, but it really doesn't make sense that people must consider someone as Baptized when they are not. 

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16