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

Author Topic: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory  (Read 2738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cryptinox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1149
  • Reputation: +248/-91
  • Gender: Male
Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
« on: September 16, 2021, 01:43:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 159
    • Reputation: +84/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #1 on: September 16, 2021, 09:11:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 95
    • Reputation: +69/-32
    • Gender: Male
    • hi
      • Papist Coffee
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #2 on: September 17, 2021, 02:30:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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 Jєω who purports to follow the "Noahide Laws" and "One God" has a "basic concept of God and His goodness." Which therefore means, practically all Jєωs are saved. Please someone explain to me how this is not the pinnacle of modern heresy to you people? 
    Logged
    “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” Council of Florence, Session 6

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #3 on: September 17, 2021, 05:26:42 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #4 on: September 17, 2021, 06:27:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #5 on: September 17, 2021, 06:38:50 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson 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.

    :facepalm:

    Uhm, no, it's not.  Would you take a look at the actual thread title, Sean?  This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire.  It's about whether someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.  Most theologians have held that this explicit faith is required for salvation, including St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus.

    In other words, prescinding from the question of BoD, is a person even a candidate for BoD, i.e. is the person capable of having supernatural faith, without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation?

    So, you have it exactly backwards.  It's Baptism of Desire which is irrelevant to this particular thread.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #6 on: September 17, 2021, 07:12:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 17, 2021, 06:38:50 AM
    This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire.  It's about whether someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. 

    This statement is self-contradictory:

    Those baptized implicitly by definition will not have explicit faith.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #7 on: September 17, 2021, 07:15:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 17, 2021, 07:12:32 AM
    This statement is self-contradictory:

    Those baptized implicitly by definition will not have explicit faith.

    You're confusing implicit desire with implicit faith ... a common problem that I once dedicated an entire thread to.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #8 on: September 17, 2021, 07:18:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 17, 2021, 07:15:29 AM
    You're confusing implicit desire with implicit faith ... a common problem that I once dedicated an entire thread to.

    No, it is you who are conflating the two, when you allege BOD is impossible without EXPLICIT FAITH.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #9 on: September 17, 2021, 07:29:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 17, 2021, 07:18:40 AM
    No, it is you who are conflating the two, when you allege BOD is impossible without EXPLICIT FAITH.

    :facepalm:  That is not a conflation.  BoD is impossible without supernatural faith ... as all agree.  Question here is whether supernatural faith is possible without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.

    This is not something I am alleging.  This is the position of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus ... which finds support in this citation from the Holy Office.

    You've got everything exactly reversed and are begging the question.

    You throw out the term "implicit Baptism of Desire" and imply that it's the same thing as implicit faith ... when they are two separate and distinct issues.  I'm a bit surprised at your lack of basic logic when you spent some time at STAS.
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #10 on: September 17, 2021, 07:31:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 17, 2021, 07:15:29 AM
    You're confusing implicit desire with implicit faith ... a common problem that I once dedicated an entire thread to.

    and I mentioned it in practically every thread on "BOD". In fact, it is now my first question to any person that starts a thread on BOD. Someone started a thread a few days ago, and the first reply came from me, see below, and it ended the thread. They never answer, they just go away.

    Quote
    What baptism of desire are you precisely talking about, what BOD do you believe in?:


    - the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Example  - A catechumen on his way to be baptized gets run over by a chariot.

    Or

    - the BOD of the "holy" Orthodox Jєω with 12 children who lives according to his conscience and his belief in a God that rewards.



    Which one are you defending here Sean?




    Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #11 on: September 17, 2021, 07:32:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 17, 2021, 07:12:32 AM
    Those baptized implicitly by definition will not have explicit faith.

    Utterly ridiculous.

    A:  Implicit Baptism of Desire:  I'm some flavor of Prot who believes in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, but I don't believe in Baptism, much less have a desire to receive it.

    B:  Implicit Faith:  I'm a Jєω who believes in a Rewarder God but don't believe in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.  But by virtue of my desire to believe all that God has revealed, I implicitly believe in the Holy Trinity.

    So if you attributed a Baptism of Desire to person A, then that person has explicit faith but implicit desire for Baptism.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #12 on: September 17, 2021, 07:36:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on September 17, 2021, 07:29:06 AM
    :facepalm:  That is not a conflation.  BoD is impossible without supernatural faith ... as all agree.  Question here is whether supernatural faith is possible without explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.

    This is not something I am alleging.  This is the position of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus ... which finds support in this citation from the Holy Office.

    You've got everything exactly reversed and are begging the question.

    You throw out the term "implicit Baptism of Desire" and imply that it's the same thing as implicit faith ... when they are two separate and distinct issues.  I'm a bit surprised at your lack of basic logic when you spent some time at STAS.

    No, it is you who have it all backwards, when you inextricably link implicit BOD to explicit faith.

    As for the naval gazing about what constitutes supernatural faith, by definition, it would be explicit faith in any revealed dogma (e.g., the resurrection), of which a man could not believe in without the actual grace of faith, precisely because such beliefs transcend nature/reason (hence super/above nature).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #13 on: September 17, 2021, 07:49:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Last Tradhican on September 17, 2021, 07:31:40 AM
    and I mentioned it in practically every thread on "BOD". In fact, it is now my first question to any person that starts a thread on BOD. Someone started a thread a few days ago, and the first reply came from me, see below, and it ended the thread. They never answer, they just go away.


    Quote
    What baptism of desire are you precisely talking about, what BOD do you believe in?:


    - the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Example  - A catechumen on his way to be baptized gets run over by a chariot.

    Or

    - the BOD of the "holy" Orthodox Jєω with 12 children who lives according to his conscience and his belief in a God that rewards.


    Which one are you defending here Sean?

    Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41839
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Office Condemnation of "Rewarder God" theory
    « Reply #14 on: September 17, 2021, 08:12:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Sean, stop derailing this thread.

    This thread is about the question of whether people who don't believe explicitly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity can have supernatural faith.

    While it has implications for BoD, these are not to be conflated.

    Depending on the answer to this question, all that's at issue is the extent of BoD, whether it can apply to any infidel who believes in God or only to those who believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.  That's what Last Trad is pointing out.

    You beg the question by assuming there's an implicit BoD and then conflate it with implicit faith.  St. Alphonsus, for instance, believed in an implicit BoD, but not an implicit faith (i.e. believed that explicit faith was required for implicit BoD).  That example alone suffices to expose your conflation of the issues.

    Very few concepts, if any, have done more damage to theology, and opened the door to Modernism, than this notion of implicit.

    Explicit BoD:  I am a catechumen who believes in all that the Church teaches, and I want to become a Catholic, and I desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

    Implicit BoD 1:  I am a catechumen who believes in all that the Church teaches, and I want to become a Catholic.  I don't explicitly think, "I wish to receive the Sacrament of Baptism."  Here the desire for Baptism is implicit in wanting to become a Catholic (since Baptism is the way to do it).

    Implicit BoD 2:  I believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity, and I desire to do whatever they ask of me.  I don't know about the Catholic Church.  Here there's an implicit desire to become Catholic, and therefore an implicit desire to be baptized.  This is one step removed from the one above.

    Implicit BoD 3:  I am a Jєω or Muslim who believes in God, or even some animist in the jungles of Africa, and I desire to do whatever God wants.  So that means I implicitly desire to convert and believe in Jesus and the Holy Trinity.  So this is exactly one more step removed from the one above.

    Implications of this issue are only for scenario #3 above.  St. Thomas,, St. Thomas, and -- according to Msgr. Fenton -- the majority of theologians (even in his day) reject scenario #3, stating that one cannot have supernatural faith without a bare minimum of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2
    « previous next »