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

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 41913 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #285 on: October 10, 2022, 12:05:28 PM »
Note too, in virtue of the opening sentence of that canon, Trent was referring to those already baptized.

You raise an interesting point. 

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #286 on: October 11, 2022, 04:49:17 AM »
You raise an interesting point.
What I find interesting, perhaps intriguing is more accurate, is how the canon (Session 7 Canon 6) that BODers use to insist that Trent taught a BOD, in fact condemns the idea of a BOD as "justification through faith alone," which was the heresy Luther was preaching that they were condemning with anathema in that canon. I mean, it seems they  never ask themselves, "exactly what is being condemned with anathema here?"

Further, how is it that the proponents of a BOD will not understand a BOD as the prot heresy of "salvation through faith alone" instead insist it is a doctrine of the Church? The standard answer here is numerous quotes from St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and many others - just as if there is no contradiction whatsoever to Trent, or insisting there is no contradiction when plainly there is.

I understand how St. Thomas could be mistaken, but I do not understand how other theologians, great saints and doctors that are often quoted *after Trent* could have studied Trent and determined it taught a BOD rather than condemned the idea.

It's on the list of things that make me go hhmmm.

  



 


Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #287 on: October 11, 2022, 08:47:11 AM »
What I find interesting, perhaps intriguing is more accurate, is how the canon (Session 7 Canon 6) that BODers use to insist that Trent taught a BOD, in fact condemns the idea of a BOD as "justification through faith alone," which was the heresy Luther was preaching that they were condemning with anathema in that canon. I mean, it seems they  never ask themselves, "exactly what is being condemned with anathema here?"

Further, how is it that the proponents of a BOD will not understand a BOD as the prot heresy of "salvation through faith alone" instead insist it is a doctrine of the Church? The standard answer here is numerous quotes from St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and many others - just as if there is no contradiction whatsoever to Trent, or insisting there is no contradiction when plainly there is.

I understand how St. Thomas could be mistaken, but I do not understand how other theologians, great saints and doctors that are often quoted *after Trent* could have studied Trent and determined it taught a BOD rather than condemned the idea.

It's on the list of things that make me go hhmmm.

 

Stubborn,

Can you post and quote the canon you're referring to here? I think you have the wrong number. 

Thanks,

DR

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #288 on: October 11, 2022, 08:57:28 AM »
What I find interesting, perhaps intriguing is more accurate, is how the canon (Session 7 Canon 6) that BODers use to insist that Trent taught a BOD, in fact condemns the idea of a BOD as "justification through faith alone," which was the heresy Luther was preaching that they were condemning with anathema in that canon. I mean, it seems they  never ask themselves, "exactly what is being condemned with anathema here?"

Further, how is it that the proponents of a BOD will not understand a BOD as the prot heresy of "salvation through faith alone" instead insist it is a doctrine of the Church? The standard answer here is numerous quotes from St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and many others - just as if there is no contradiction whatsoever to Trent, or insisting there is no contradiction when plainly there is.

I understand how St. Thomas could be mistaken, but I do not understand how other theologians, great saints and doctors that are often quoted *after Trent* could have studied Trent and determined it taught a BOD rather than condemned the idea.

It's on the list of things that make me go hhmmm.

I beleive they were mistaken by equating Trent's teaching about CoD (Confession of Desire) to the use of votum here in relation to the Sacrament of Baptism.

IMO, that passage is ambiguous and could be read either way, but the differences between the language used here vs. what was used for Confession is striking and tells me that they're not teaching the same thing there.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #289 on: October 11, 2022, 09:07:49 AM »
Stubborn,

Can you post and quote the canon you're referring to here? I think you have the wrong number.

Thanks,

DR

Yes, sorry about that, it's the below canon, which is Session 7 Canon 4:

"CANON IV.-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."


To fix the canon and quote what I said earlier:

Trent on the Sacraments In General Session 7 (Canon 4): Sacraments are not necessary for salvation = condemned with anathema.

Trent on the Sacraments In General Session 7 (Canon 4): No sacrament or no desire = justification. This proposition Trent clearly condemns as obtaining justification through faith alone.