Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?  (Read 9918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17115
  • Reputation: +9508/-4050
  • Gender: Male
Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
« Reply #90 on: July 07, 2014, 09:58:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Will you retract your statement that "there can be no such thing as a justification which does not remit all punishment due to sin"?


    OK, that was an inexact formulation for the sake of brevity.  There can be no INITIAL justification without the remission of all punishment due to sin.  Obviously, in the case of Confession, some temporal punishment can remain.  But Trent teaches that there can be no INITIAL JUSTIFICATION (this "translation" from our fallen state) without REBIRTH.  Then Trent teaches that REBIRTH is defined in such as way that no temporal punishment remains that could hinder entry into heaven.  So I need to add the word "Initial" to make my statement valid.


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 368
    • Reputation: +1084/-225
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #91 on: July 07, 2014, 03:11:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    Mr. Drew, I already posted a detailed defense of the Holy Office Letter, and of other matters relating to it, and of the infallible teaching of the Church after Trent, on another thread and I'm not going to enter into it here. This thread concerns the teaching of Trent.  

    1. I've asked you this before and you obstinately refuse to answer this simple question. That's because to do so would show that you are wrong.

    Is a justified soul inside or outside the Church? Whichever answer you give, you either contradict Trent and dogma, or your own beliefs. It is heretical to say a justified soul is outside the Church. But if a justified soul, who has received baptism or penance in voto, has entered the Church, then nothing else is required for his salvation other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, as Trent dogmatically states.

    Quote from: Denz 809
    "we must believe that to those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace [Rev. 14:13]), since Christ our Lord says: "If anyone shall drink of the water, that I will give him, he shall not thirst forever, but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting" [John 4:14]. Thus neither is "our own justice established as our own" from ourselves, nor is the justice of God [Rom. 10:3] "ignored" or repudiated; for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified [can. 10 and 11] through its inherence in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ


    Hence all the justified will inherit eternal life and are considered to have truly merited it if they but depart this life in the grace and justice received in justification and it is most plainly declared that nothing is still wanting in them toward this end.

    Your thesis that a man who dies justified will not ultimately go to heaven, but that something beside this is necessary, is heretical.



    Nishant:

    If you have "already posted a detailed defense of the (1949) Holy Office Letter," I have not seen it.  Or if I did, I was not recognize as a "defense" at all.  

    You are making the same egregious mistake that Fr. Kramer has done.  You are taking a sentence from the narrative on the Decree of Justification out of context of the narrative to arrive at a belief in "salvation by justification alone" then using that derived doctrine to reinterpret that dogmatic canons in a non-literal sense.  It is egregious because the Canons are the infallible dogmatic propositions that constitute the revelation of God proposed by the Church as formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.  It is the narrative that must be interpreted in light of the Canons not, as you and Fr. Kramer have done, by corrupting the Canon to conform to your understanding of the narrative.  What you are doing is wrong and evidences a fundamental misunderstanding on
    f the nature of dogma.


    The last section of the narrative on the Decree of Justification from which you have taken your quotation begins:  "Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost..."  What is the "manner" that the justification has been obtained?  It is identified earlier in the same narrative  and that is through explicit faith, contrition, and sacramental Baptism.

    Quote from: Decree on Justification
    Now, they are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing, they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism; finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.....  This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

    The causes of this justification are:
    The final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.


    For someone who has been baptized, the only thing necessary for salvation is a state of justification.  But to take the citation as you have done, out of the context of the narrative for the purpose of corrupting the literal words of a dogmatic canon is a grave sin against the faith because the canon is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.
    Quote from: Pope Pius XII, [i
    Mystici Corporis[/i]]Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.


    Even the heretical 1949 Holy Office Letter does not say that those souls that "obtain salvation" by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' are "members of the Church."  It says that they are "related to the Church."  This "relation" effects salvation.  As Lumen Gentium said, while referencing the 1949 Holy Office Letter,"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."  Perhaps they are members of the "Church of Christ" which as Lumen Gentium says "subsists in the Catholic Church."

    You believe that a Hindu as a "good willed" Hindu by his 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' is thereby "related" to the Church and can obtain "salvation."  The Decree on Justification identifies this "belief" under the heading, "The Manner of Preparation" for Justification.  But you and the 1949 Holy Office Letter have made this "preparatory" state to receive the actual grace of God as the only sufficient and necessary cause of justification.  And with your doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" what more is needed?

    The Church has defined that the sacraments, that is, the form and the matter, are necessary for salvation.  You cannot predicate membership in the Church to anyone that has not been baptized.  

    Quote from: Nishant
    2. In case you now wish to follow the Dimonds and heretically deny that a man can obtain the grace of justification through the desire of the sacraments, then Canon 4 refutes you, as does the famous passage in Trent that says the translation from the state of sin to the state of grace cannot be effected except by baptism or the desire thereof. You are the one who changes this dogma into what you would like it to state, that no one can be translated to the state of grace except through baptism in re. Canon 4 itself is a refutation of your repeated false dichotomy between justification and salvation because that Canon defines that the sacraments or the desire thereof is necessary to obtain justification.

    Nobody can be justified without the sacraments in re or in voto, and nobody can be saved without being justified. Hence the sacraments are necessary for salvation in re or in voto. But after justification nothing else is necessary for salvation than perseverance in the grace and justice received, because a justified soul has entered the Church.


    I never said that the Canon 4 does not allow a state of justification by desire.  I also quoted the opinion of Fr. Feeney who believed that a state of justification was possible by an explicit votum to receive the sacrament.  The arguments of Ladislaus are excellent but not necessary to profess the Catholic faith.  But the same thing can be said of you, if you heretically affirm that a man can obtain salvation without the sacraments "then Canon 4 refutes you." Again, for clarity sake, the sacrament is the form and matter.  The same Canon 4 that says that the "desire" can produce a state of justification also says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.  You cannot affirm one proposition and deny the other as Fr. Kramer has done because they both have the same authority, that is, God as the Revealer of these truths.  
     
    Nor is it my responsibility to explain why the "justified" soul by "desire" does not possess a necessary attribute of justification that permits salvation, but I know that to be true because God has revealed it.  Since you and Fr. Kramer have a problem with mystery, you respond by denying the literal meaning of the dogma and characterize those who oppose your taking "theological license" with God's truth as being "fundamentalists."  

    Quote from: Nishant
    3. Also, your paraphrase is mistaken about what Trent says regarding the sacrament of penance. Trent teaches "This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been regenerated." But even you said "the desire for Penance can be effective for "salvation and so the sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation in re or in voto, but the above passage says Baptism is necessary - not for justification only but for salvation - in just the way penance is necesary, which means Baptism is also necessary for salvation in re or in voto.

    This is plainly taught in the Roman Catechism - when the reception of water baptism is rendered impossible through no fault of the person, that person can obtain grace and justice through his desire and intention, combined with repentance for past sins. The Catechism, following St. Thomas, contrasts adults who can receive this with infants who cannot, and plainly teaches that in adults the same danger present for infants - of dying and going to hell - is not present. So the Catechism has not even the slightest doubt that those who die justified will eventually go to heaven, while you unfortunately persist in your impious doubt  concerning this already defined truth. This shows that in addition to the dogmatic teaching cited above the intent of the Tridentine Fathers and the mind of the Catholic Church is plainly diametrically opposed to your own.

    You should ask yourself why you are the one adding to, subtracting from, editing out or otherwise in some way detracting from the plain dogmatic teaching above if you are really concerned about holding to the Faith handed down exactly as the Church has once defined it. The reason is because like most Feeneyites you care about what your own private judgment tells you God should have done rather than what the Church infallibly teaches you that He has done.


    Your have misquoted the text by adding a word.  The Decree on Penance says, "And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated." (Est autem hoc sacramentum pœnitentiæ lapsis post baptismum ad salutem necessarium, ut nondum regeneratis ipse baptismus.)  The comparison concerns the kind of "necessity" which differs regarding the ends. Your quotation is not correct.  It does not say as you said, "just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been regenerated."  The necessity of the sacrament of Penance "unto salvation" can be effected by an explicit "desire" for the sacrament of Penance as an explicit desire for Baptism can effect "regeneration."  Again, the distinction between "salvation" and "regeneration" is made here just as it is made in the dogmatic decree of Canon 4.  

    It was Fr. Kramer, with your support, who was the "one adding to, subtracting from, editing out or otherwise in some way detracting from the plain dogmatic teaching."  He literally changed the conjunction in Canon 4 from a coordinating conjunction to a subordinating conjunction, and then he added the word, "morally" as an adverbial modifier to the word "necessary" which changes the necessity to one of precept.  It was necessary that he do this so that Canon 4 would support his doctrine of "salvation by justification alone" which he plucked, just like you, from the narrative on the Decree of Justification.  And you, like Fr. Kramer, make an accusation against me altering the "plain dogmatic teaching" without producing any specific evidence to support the charge.  I have done nothing of the sort.  I have taken the dogmatic Canons literally adding nothing to and taking nothing away.  You of course find that problematic but why add to the sin by dissembling about who in fact is "adding, subtracting from, editing out or otherwise in some way detracting from the plain dogmatic teaching"?

    Again, the teaching of explicit BOD as Fr. Joseph Fenton said is the common teaching only since the "time of St. Robert Bellarmine."  That is about 400 years.  It is not a teaching of the "ordinary and universal magisterium."  And this fact is so self-evident that it looks like an insult to point it out.  The end where the doctrine of BOD leads is no longer a matter of speculating on the possible.  We have arrived at the end.  Or to be more specific, you have arrived.  And that is the dissolution of all dogma.

    So, what are arguing about?  You do not believe anything with regard to the Decree of Justification or the dogmatic Canons from Trent regarding the sacraments and salvation.  You do not believe that supernatural faith that has as its object a truth revealed by God is necessary for salvation.  You do not believe that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation.  You do not believe that the sacraments are necessary for salvation in re or in voto, either implicitly or explicitly.  And you do not believe that being a subject of the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.  You are in agreement with the 1949 Holy Office Letter, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay  who said:

    Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre
    The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

    The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics


    Quote from: Bishop Fellay
    And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
    Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006


    Their doctrine and yours is derived from the 1949 Holy Office Letter.  It is the doctrine wherein you hold that any "good willed" Hindu as Hindu, Muslim as a Muslim, Buddhist as a Buddhist, Jew as a Jew, Protestant as a Protestant, etc., etc., etc., can by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes,' as the only necessary and sufficient cause, be justified, related to the Church, heir to heaven and obtain salvation.  

    What possible objection can you offer against the Prayer Meeting at Assisi?  Or is it that you have no objection?  

    Drew





    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #92 on: July 08, 2014, 11:32:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Mr. Drew, there are so many strawmen in your post above, and it is all so disconnected from the topic of this thread, that I have to wonder if I should address them all in a post here. But like I told you, I posted a defense of that letter you seem so interested in on another thread, and even if as you say you didn't read it, you could not possibly have forgotten that I told you I believe in explicit faith and implicit desire, just as all the Doctors did, which you have ignored above, so your post is chock full of non sequiturs as it is. Anyway, I'll get back to typing out a reply to you later.

    1. Lad, I appreciate your reformulation above, because your earlier formulation was exactly contrary to the canon I cited, and seemed to evince a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of justification. Now you say only first justification cannot be effected without the intrinsic remission of all temporal punishment also, citing as proof Trent's teaching on rebirth and justification.

    Against that, I already cited the Catechism of Trent which you did not respond to, which clearly treats of first justification, and says clearly that catechumens can obtain grace and justice when the reception of the salutary waters of baptism is rendered impossible through no fault of their own. Your reading in the past has been to claim they receive the water itself by an extraordinary means but that is clearly ruled out by the text, which says that was rendered impossible without the person's fault. Trent's Catechism is here following St. Thomas, who distinguishes between adults and infants regarding BOD in just the same way, saying one can obtain grace and justice through desire and others cannot.

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    So the idea is that SOME of the Sacraments can be received in voto.  Character sacraments simply cannot.


    I understand this is your thesis but I think it is mistaken. First of all, where do you find proof of this in Trent? Sanctifying grace and the character of baptism are not so intrinsically interconnected that the one cannot exist without the other, character exists without grace in fallen Christians, grace existed without the character in the souls of the just before Christ, hence what you say is not true.

    2. Secondly, you are ignoring what the canon says. It is not saying merely that some sacraments can be received in voto, it is saying precisely that some sacraments received in voto effect the grace of justification. But which sacraments can these be? There must be at least two (aut eurom voto is in the plural, meaning strictly "or the desire of them") sacraments whose in voto effect is the grace of justification. And that proves you are wrong, for the two sacraments in question must be baptism and penance.

    There is yet a third point, if you admit the passage here (as you do) refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire, or in voto. The same phrase used here, except that it is in the singular (aut ejus voto) is used, as you know in the passage where Trent says justification cannot be except by baptism or the voto thereof. So, then, if this passage here dogmatically defines that penance can be received in voto, by the same reasoning and the use of the same phrase, Trent there dogmatically defines that initial justification can also be obtained by the desire thereof concerning baptism.

    3. Fourth, you are ignoring that Trent's condemnation of faith alone in that canon - where Trent says that justification is not effected by faith alone but by the sacraments or the desire thereof - means that Trent is speaking primarily of baptism, because as the other canons show and as the heretics believed, "faith alone" referred primarily to precisely first or initial justification.

    So what does the passage the Dimonds wrest mean? It is Denz 792 and the passage uses a Scriptural metaphor of being buried to describe true Baptism. "For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because "there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried together with Christ by[/i] baptism unto death" [Rom. 6:4]", notice the because. So all the passage says and can be made to say is that in the actual baptism of water, we "are truly buried with Christ" when baptized and so no temporal punishment at all remains, and God hates nothing. The other canons above prove this is not intrinsic to justification. Trent plainly includes those born again by desire when it says this translation cannot be effected without baptism or its voto.

    Finally, on just another post, Lad, I think it's interesting that you were saying on another thread that if you had reservations about something but Pius IX and the Fathers at the First Vatican Council settled the issue one way or another, you would retract your doubts and submit to their authority. I understand the point you were making there, which I think is a legitimate one. But as I mentioned, and as you know, they taught that Pius IX's Encyclical meant that some souls are saved without baptism in re, and not without baptism in voto, agreeing that this was dogmatically definable, and preparing a text to that effect. If bishops agree with the Pope that something is dogmatically definable, that proposition rises to a level of certitude theologians call proxima de fide, as you probably know, and faithful Catholics can no longer publicly deny it. This would have been true, for e.g., of the Assumption after the episcopate agreed it was definable and before Pius XII defined it. If you disagree, I'd like you to address this in your response. But if not, then by your own example, retracting your doubts and submitting to the authority of what the First Vatican Council considered definable, and what the bishops taught Pius IX's Encyclical meant with his consent, should be the appropriate way for Catholics still struggling with doubts about the teaching that souls are also saved by baptism of desire to react.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17115
    • Reputation: +9508/-4050
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #93 on: July 08, 2014, 12:16:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    grace existed without the character in the souls of the just before Christ, hence what you say is not true.


    Yet these just, despite their being in sanctifying grace, could not enter heaven, could they?  Which speaks to Father Feeney's point, that there can be justification without salvation.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #94 on: July 08, 2014, 12:19:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Nishant
    grace existed without the character in the souls of the just before Christ, hence what you say is not true.


    Yet these just, despite their being in sanctifying grace, could not enter heaven, could they?  Which speaks to Father Feeney's point, that there can be justification without salvation.



    This is the position of Fr. Feeney:

    Quote from: Fr. Feeney

    Justification, therefore, and sanctifying grace, can come to a person before the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism, provided explicit faith in Christ, explicit purpose to receive the sacrament and to join the Catholic Church, and perfect charity are not lacking.

    Sanctifying grace can be received ahead of the Sacrament of Baptism, and in that case it is sufficient for justification, but this does not mean that it is sufficient for salvation if the actual Sacrament of (water) Baptism is not received.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17115
    • Reputation: +9508/-4050
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #95 on: July 08, 2014, 01:02:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    2. Secondly, you are ignoring what the canon says. It is not saying merely that some sacraments can be received in voto, it is saying precisely that some sacraments received in voto effect the grace of justification. But which sacraments can these be? There must be at least two (aut eurom voto is in the plural, meaning strictly "or the desire of them") sacraments whose in voto effect is the grace of justification. And that proves you are wrong, for the two sacraments in question must be baptism and penance.


    Sorry that I'm addressing these piecemeal.  I just have a hard time dealing with the lengthy posts and prefer to break down each point.

    I see what you're saying, but this passage is not conclusive that way.  It's referring to the Sacraments as a whole being necessary for salvation and thus uses the plural.  Clearly it does not indicate that all the Sacraments, not even the Sacraments necessary for salvation, can be received in voto.  

    Holy Communion is also necessary for salvation.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm

    Quote
    The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, there is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life.


    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #96 on: July 09, 2014, 05:41:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No problem with addressing it in part, but let's cover every part. Let's begin with the point you responded to.

    You say the Eucharist is also necessary for salvation, but as your article notes, it is necessary not as means but as a precept. More importantly, the Eucharist does not effect the grace of justification, rather it presupposes it, hence it is not one of the sacraments referred to here. Recall the relevant portion of the canon was,

    et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci ... (and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification)

    You admit this is in the plural, hence there must be at least two such sacraments. So again I ask you to answer this question, which are the the two sacraments of which the voto thereof effects or obtains very specifically the grace of justification? These can only be baptism and penance. The same conclusion would follow from eliminating the sacraments that do not effect justification from the list of sacraments necessary for salvation, only baptism and penance would remain.

    I will come back to the point of Fr. Feeney's position, and the response to it later, in a reply to Mr. Drew.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17115
    • Reputation: +9508/-4050
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #97 on: July 09, 2014, 10:23:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Trent doesn't distinguish between types of necessity, so the fact that it's necessary by precept makes no difference in the context of this quote.

    Quote
    If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.


    Trent is using the plural loosely because it's talking about the Sacraments plural as a group.  I do not find this argument to be conclusive.  It might imply what you're saying, but then again it might not.  Its obvious intent is to condemn the notion that people can be saved without the Sacraments by faith alone (or supernatural virtues alone).  It condemns as heretical the opinion held by most BoD proponents.  I think that it's reading too much into this to assert that it's proof for BoD.  You were the first who started to use language that would have the Sacraments operating through the votum and being the instrumental cause of justification even in BoD.  Most BoD proponents fall under this anathema.





    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1362/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #98 on: July 09, 2014, 11:28:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I do not find this argument to be conclusive.  It might imply what you're saying, but then again it might not.


    Well, ok, it may prove that both Baptism and penance may be received in voto, but it may not, we'll come back to it. So please address the other arguments, let's begin with the Roman Catechism.

    Quote
    The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.


    I'd said "This teaching is also contained in the Roman Catechism, showing the mind and intent of the Tridentine Fathers and clearly precluding all and each of the Feeneyite novelties. The Catechism clearly explains it is speaking for adults of the exact same danger of dying and going to hell that it earlier treated in the case of infants, and for those for whom the reception of the "salutary waters" of the sacrament is rendered impossible through no fault of the person. Such a person can obtain grace and justice through his desire and intention, with repentance for past sins. The Catechism thus clearly teaches this person will die justified, and unlike the children, will not go to hell".
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

    Offline Histrionics

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 73
    • Reputation: +72/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #99 on: July 09, 2014, 01:47:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is a fascinating and informative exchange reading Lad's and Nishant's posts and blocking out the other nonsense cluttering up this thread; thank you gentlemen.

    Offline umblehay anmay

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 378
    • Reputation: +27/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Does BOD proved the grace of baptism?
    « Reply #100 on: July 14, 2014, 08:28:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant



    Quote
    If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

    ....  Session 7, Can. 4 on the Sacraments in General

    The above quote people keep putting forth is on the Sacraments in general.  If the phrase " or without a desire thereof " had not been included it would have been an error because of Sess. 14, Chap 4.  

    In Sess. 14, Chap. 4 Trent declares that a baptized person who has fallen into grave sin can be reconciled to God (and thus restored to justification) through perfect contrition and a desire for the Sacrament of Penance.

    Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On the Sacrament of Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that although this contrition sometimes happens to be perfect through charity and to reconcile man to God before this sacrament is actually received, nonetheless this reconciliation ought not to be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”


    More importantly, Session 7, Can 4 also denies the idea of BOD because it condemns the idea that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation.... It goes on to say ... "though ALL (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual"  

    1.  The Sacraments of the New Law ARE necessary
    2. Not ALL are necessary for each individual
    3.  That means that at least ONE is necessary to be incorporated into the      sacramental system of the New Law
    4. That ONE can ONLY be Baptism!

    If you want to keep insisting that " or without a desire thereof " can refer to multiple sacraments, then how about Ordination by Desire ?????  

    The Dimonds give a much more indepth discussion of this subject in their book.  If anyone cares to read it the entire book is available online.  




     

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