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 ... 14

Author Topic: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent  (Read 11628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mega-fin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Reputation: +249/-96
  • Gender: Male
Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« on: November 24, 2017, 09:05:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Genuinuely curious here - how do those who reject BOD understand the following from the Council of Trent and St Alphonsus in regards to the same?

    ouncil of Trent 1545-1563
    Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
       "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
    Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
       "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
    St. Alphonsus Liguori 1691-1787
    Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
       "But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. 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 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.'"
    Logged
    Please disregard everything I have said; I have tended to speak before fact checking.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13817
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #1 on: November 25, 2017, 04:50:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mega-fin on November 24, 2017, 09:05:54 PM
    Genuinuely curious here - how do those who reject BOD understand the following from the Council of Trent and St Alphonsus in regards to the same?

    Council of Trent 1545-1563
    Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
       "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

    Have you read the canon? I very often wonder if those who promote a BOD have ever actually sat down for 2 minutes and actually read what they copy and paste.

    BOD is not a sacrament. The canon literally starts by saying the sacraments are necessary for salvation - do you believe the sacraments are necessary for salvation?

    "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,......let him be anathema.



    The second part of the canon continues along that same theme, it does not first decree the sacraments are necessary, then they are not necessary. So keeping in mind the sacraments are necessary.......

    and [if anyone shall say] that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

    If you read the canon as written without zooming into one word "desire" and ignoring the rest of the entire canon - and council for that matter, you will note that:

    Per the canon, 1) The sacraments are necessary for salvation -  and 2) those people are anathema who say that without the sacraments, or without the desire of the sacraments, (through faith alone) men can be JUSTIFIED.

    So first, the canon does not guarantee salvation to anyone, baptized or not, the canon literally only states that the sacraments themselves are necessary for salvation and whoever says they are not is anathema.

    Second, not even the requirement for salvation, justification, is guaranteed. In fact, a BOD, i.e. justification through faith alone, (without the sacraments or the desire of them) is condemned with anathema.

    No worries, I likely will not participate further in this thread unless you want to debate the actual meaning of this canon, using this canon, the words of this canon or some other version of this canon.

    My goal here is to get the BODers to see what this canon is actually saying, so they can understand and accept what it actually means, so they will stop using this canon to promote a BOD because it actually condemns a BOD.

    Otherwise, feel free to ignore the whole thing and keep on keeping on, I will obey the canon and simply, let you be anathema.  
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +249/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #2 on: November 25, 2017, 06:59:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Lol. No desire to debate, as I stated, I was genuinely interested in a perspective I was unable to find. Thank you. 
    Logged
    Please disregard everything I have said; I have tended to speak before fact checking.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13817
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #3 on: November 25, 2017, 09:10:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mega-fin on November 25, 2017, 06:59:15 AM
    Lol. No desire to debate, as I stated, I was genuinely interested in a perspective I was unable to find. Thank you.
    Ah, ok - my apologies, normally any thread starting out with those quotes turns into a hundred pages of the same tired old arguments.

    The other thing I want to say, is that if the canon said what the BODers claim it says, then the only way to accomplish using that canon, is if the canon was worded like this, or something like this:

    If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous,
     and [if anyone shall say] we declare, define and pronounce that although all [of the sacraments] are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification." let him be anathema.

    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Theosist

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #4 on: April 16, 2018, 04:02:47 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Are any of you BOD advocates capable of understanding the logical distinction between necessity and sufficiency?

    The Council if Trent teaches that baptism or its “desire” are necessary for translation into the state of justification; is doesn’t state anywhere that “desire” is sufficient to effect this.

    This is a fact of logic.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41843
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #5 on: April 16, 2018, 08:57:11 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Theosist on April 16, 2018, 04:02:47 AM
    Are any of you BOD advocates capable of understanding the logical distinction between necessity and sufficiency?

    The Council if Trent teaches that baptism or its “desire” are necessary for translation into the state of justification; is doesn’t state anywhere that “desire” is sufficient to effect this.

    This is a fact of logic.

    Yep.  I've made this case before.  "cannot happen without" = necessary cause but not sufficient cause.  BoDers assumed that this means that the votum is a sufficient cause, but the language says otherwise.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #6 on: April 16, 2018, 12:04:42 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • If you believe Canon 4 supports Baptism of Desire then you must also believe in Holy Orders of Desire, Matrimony of Desire, Communion of Desire, etc.
    Logged

    Offline Carissima

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 782
    • Reputation: +569/-229
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #7 on: April 16, 2018, 01:20:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on April 16, 2018, 12:04:42 PM
    If you believe Canon 4 supports Baptism of Desire then you must also believe in Holy Orders of Desire, Matrimony of Desire, Communion of Desire, etc.
    I heard a Priest once during a sermon mention ‘confession of desire’. 
    IMHO that is the last thing the laity need to hear considering those on their deathbeds who need family members to go to great lengths to get them a Priest for Last Sacraments! 
    If someone stops to think ‘oh well at least grandma/grandpa can have confession of desire, they’ll go to Heaven.’ NOT GOOD. It’s a slippery slope one way or another with this ‘Sacraments of desire stuff’. 
    Before I had even heard of BOD I did have a general idea for how Baptism worked and always believed that God would provide the Sacrament for those destined to be with Him in Heaven. I think also hearing stories of people in car accidents having a random person show up on the scene to Baptize them could have helped with my understanding also. 
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #8 on: April 16, 2018, 01:44:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Carissima on April 16, 2018, 01:20:53 PM
    I heard a Priest once during a sermon mention ‘confession of desire’.
    IMHO that is the last thing the laity need to hear considering those on their deathbeds who need family members to go to great lengths to get them a Priest for Last Sacraments!
    If someone stops to think ‘oh well at least grandma/grandpa can have confession of desire, they’ll go to Heaven.’ NOT GOOD. It’s a slippery slope one way or another with this ‘Sacraments of desire stuff’.
    Before I had even heard of BOD I did have a general idea for how Baptism worked and always believed that God would provide the Sacrament for those destined to be with Him in Heaven. I think also hearing stories of people in car accidents having a random person show up on the scene to Baptize them could have helped with my understanding also.
    Penance of Desire is a thing as defined at Trent, but it's only for cases like martyrs and those who made every attempt to get the Sacrament but were unable to due to circuмstances outside of their control. 
    But justifying BOD using Trent requires one to straight up ignore the "pure and natural water" canon and also believe that Holy Orders, Matrimony, etc. can be replaced with the "desire" for them.
    Logged

    Offline JoeZ

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 347
    • Reputation: +223/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #9 on: April 16, 2018, 03:18:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on April 16, 2018, 01:44:20 PM
    Penance of Desire is a thing as defined at Trent, but it's only for cases like martyrs and those who made every attempt to get the Sacrament but were unable to due to circuмstances outside of their control.
    But justifying BOD using Trent requires one to straight up ignore the "pure and natural water" canon and also believe that Holy Orders, Matrimony, etc. can be replaced with the "desire" for them.
    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
    Logged
    Pray the Holy Rosary.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #10 on: April 16, 2018, 03:40:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 347
    • Reputation: +223/-27
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #11 on: April 16, 2018, 04:01:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    Pray the Holy Rosary.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #12 on: April 16, 2018, 04:18:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +59/-171
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #13 on: April 16, 2018, 04:43:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • 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

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #14 on: April 16, 2018, 05:37:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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 ... 14
    « previous next »