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 ... 5

Author Topic: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory  (Read 5751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cryptinox

  • Supporter
Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
« on: September 16, 2021, 01:43:29 PM »
I found the condemnation of the "Rewarder God" theory from the Holy Office Lad has mentioned. Here it is. I hope you guys can convince salvation for non Catholic people with this.

Quote
Responses of the Holy Office under Pope Clement XI, 1703:
Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Q.  Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this passage of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder' [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.”

Logged

Offline Shrewd Operator

Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2021, 09:11:44 PM »
Good to know, but this is not a refutation of what is actually held by BOD/BOB proponents.

This tells a Minister what HE must do before giving Water Baptism. He cannot stop short with the basic idea of God and His goodness and pour. 

This does not say what God must do, or not do, in enlightening a soul with His grace or granting the grace of Justification, or Salvation in either Testament.

Of course a minister must teach, govern and sanctify properly in all circuмstances. Such a basic concept of God and His Goodness is the least that an uninstructed pagan must arrive at to qualify for BOD. He must have at least that much of a concept, and the Grace to believe it, and intent to live accordingly.

  
Logged

Offline Xenophon

Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2021, 02:30:09 AM »
Quote from: Shrewd Operator on September 16, 2021, 09:11:44 PM
Good to know, but this is not a refutation of what is actually held by BOD/BOB proponents.

This tells a Minister what HE must do before giving Water Baptism. He cannot stop short with the basic idea of God and His goodness and pour.

This does not say what God must do, or not do, in enlightening a soul with His grace or granting the grace of Justification, or Salvation in either Testament.

Of course a minister must teach, govern and sanctify properly in all circuмstances. Such a basic concept of God and His Goodness is the least that an uninstructed pagan must arrive at to qualify for BOD. He must have at least that much of a concept, and the Grace to believe it, and intent to live accordingly.

 
What you write qualifies practically every person with the exclusion of the Orient which is by and large explicitly atheistic. I'm sure you would say a Jew who purports to follow the "Noahide Laws" and "One God" has a "basic concept of God and His goodness." Which therefore means, practically all Jews are saved. Please someone explain to me how this is not the pinnacle of modern heresy to you people? 
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2021, 05:26:42 AM »
Quote from: Shrewd Operator on September 16, 2021, 09:11:44 PM
Good to know, but this is not a refutation of what is actually held by BOD/BOB proponents.

This tells a Minister what HE must do before giving Water Baptism. He cannot stop short with the basic idea of God and His goodness and pour.

This does not say what God must do, or not do, in enlightening a soul with His grace or granting the grace of Justification, or Salvation in either Testament.

Of course a minister must teach, govern and sanctify properly in all circuмstances. Such a basic concept of God and His Goodness is the least that an uninstructed pagan must arrive at to qualify for BOD. He must have at least that much of a concept, and the Grace to believe it, and intent to live accordingly.

 

You're (deliberately?) ignoring the part in there where the Holy Office declares belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to be necessary by necessity of means (for supernatural faith).  That's the exact language being used in this debate among theologians.

Yes, this is a practical directive ... but it gives an explanation for the theological reason behind it.  Basically, it's saying that Rewarder God theory cannot even be entertained as a POSSIBILITY in the practical order.

So this is even a stronger statement that one might imagine.  Normally one may confer Baptism on a dying person in a doubtful scenario, if you think there's SOME chance that the person has the right dispositions.  So, for, instance, if there's a dying unconscious person, the priest typically asks, did the person give ANY sign before going unconscious of possibly wanting to be baptized?  There needn't be absolutely certainty of the right disposition, but there needs to be some indicator.  In other words, even in a doubtful scenario, so long as there's some possibility, the person may be baptized.  Here, this directive is tantamount to saying, "there's no chance that this suffices for supernatural faith" so you can't even baptize such a person in danger of death.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2021, 06:27:46 AM »
This passage concerns those who may receive water baptism from a priest.  

It says nothing regarding whether those who die without water baptism can die implicitly baptized by desire.

The excerpt is irrelevant to the debate.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
« previous next »