Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 49

Author Topic: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"  (Read 36809 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
« Reply #225 on: August 23, 2018, 06:23:49 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 23, 2018, 11:33:34 AM
LoT used to do the same thing.  He would excoriate "Feeneyites" for rejecting St. Thomas.  Then when you turned the tables on him by pointing out that he rejected St. Thomas by believing in the 2-article-explicit-faith theory, he'd disappear from the thread.  So he would spam BoD quotes out there, trying to make it SEEMS like they supported his own implicit faith theory, which none of them did.  But when you flushed him out from hiding behind these, then he disappeared and started a new thread where he resumed his spamming.
The same thought came to me, he reminded me of LOT. Hopefully, he will not let his pride get in the way of learning something new. Though I doubt it, for it is rare to find a BODer that is loyal to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, they all just use them and throw them under the bus to teach what they truly believe, that anyone can be saved who is a "good" person.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
« Reply #226 on: August 24, 2018, 08:28:43 AM »
Quote from: Last Tradhican on August 23, 2018, 06:23:49 PM
anyone can be saved who is a "good" person.

THIS really is the essence of BoDism for most who hold it, and especially those who vigorously promote it.  Rarely is it about the rare case of a pious catechumen who zealously desired Baptism but was cut off before he could receive it.  [Of course, even in that scenario, BoDers would make Our Lord into a liar when He said, "Ask and you shall receive."  If someone desires and asks for the Sacrament of Baptism, would God refuse it?]  It's always been about the revival of Pelagianism where natural "goodness" can in some way merit salvation.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
« Reply #227 on: August 24, 2018, 09:41:05 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 24, 2018, 08:28:43 AM
THIS really is the essence of BoDism for most who hold it, and especially those who vigorously promote it.  Rarely is it about the rare case of a pious catechumen who zealously desired Baptism but was cut off before he could receive it.  [Of course, even in that scenario, BoDers would make Our Lord into a liar when He said, "Ask and you shall receive."  If someone desires and asks for the Sacrament of Baptism, would God refuse it?]  It's always been about the revival of Pelagianism where natural "goodness" can in some way merit salvation.
"and especially those that vigorously promote BOD",  is exactly my experience. 
Logged

Offline Struthio

Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
« Reply #228 on: August 24, 2018, 09:53:36 AM »
Quote from: Council of Trent, Sessio VI, cuм hoc tempore
Caput IV
Insinuatur descriptio justifications impit et modus ejus in statu gratiae

Quibus verbis justificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Jesum Christum, Salvatorem nostrum. Quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei.

source

Some want to have the phrase "translatio sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest" mean that the translation can happen with either the bath or the desire thereof. But that is not what the latin text says.

In latin, after a negation (like sine), or in a rhetorical question which is used in place of a negation, a second negated expression can only be appended using "aut" (and never using "et"). Examples:

Quote
Nihil tam vile aut tam vulgare est.
Quote
Nothing is so cheap and vulgar.

Quote
Quid est levius aut turpius?
Quote
What is more airy and ignominious?

It is illegal to write "Nihil tam vile et tam vulgare est." or "Quid est levius et turpius?" Thus, resolving double negation (sine+non), "sine lavacro aut voto fieri non potest" means: can happen only with both bath and desire thereof.

There is another argument against the false idea that the latin text signifies that the vote alone is sufficient. If the vote alone was sufficient, consequently the bath alone was sufficient, too. But it is clear that no adult receives a valid sacrament of baptism without desiring and asking for it.

Finally, reading the whole text of "cuм hoc tempore" impartially, one finds that it teaches no form of baptism other than the sacrament of baptism. It is disingenuous to use the single word "desire", expressing that bath as well as desire thereof are necessary, to boldly claim that the Council of Trent teaches "Baptism of Desire".



Latin examples from: Rubenbauer, Hofmann: "Lateinische Grammatik", 12. koor. Auflage, ISBN 978-3-7661-5627-3, §220 Doppelte Verneinung, page 253.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Is BOD Merely a "Disputed Issue?"
« Reply #229 on: August 24, 2018, 10:08:25 AM »
Quote from: Struthio on August 24, 2018, 09:53:36 AM
There is another argument against the false idea that the latin text signifies that the vote alone is sufficient. If the vote alone was sufficient, consequently the bath alone was sufficient, too. But it is clear that no adult receives a valid sacrament of baptism without desiring and asking for it.
Very good point.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 49
« previous next »