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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 33079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline praesul

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Reputation: +25/-10
  • Gender: Male
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #285 on: October 10, 2022, 12:05:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 08, 2022, 06:29:58 AM
    Note too, in virtue of the opening sentence of that canon, Trent was referring to those already baptized.

    You raise an interesting point. 
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14732
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #286 on: October 11, 2022, 04:49:17 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: praesul on October 10, 2022, 12:05:28 PM
    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.

      



     
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #287 on: October 11, 2022, 08:47:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 11, 2022, 04:49:17 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
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46648
    • Reputation: +27510/-5103
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #288 on: October 11, 2022, 08:57:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 11, 2022, 04:49:17 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.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14732
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #289 on: October 11, 2022, 09:07:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on October 11, 2022, 08:47:11 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.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14732
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #290 on: October 11, 2022, 09:17:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 11, 2022, 08:57:28 AM
    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.
    It really is only confusing AFTER reading it the way a BODers explain it. But if one reads it without ever having read it at all prior, you will find that it does not grant salvation or justification at all. What it actually says is that without either, the idea that justification is obtained, is condemned with anathema.

    Somehow *that* was turned into, with either salvation is obtained.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #291 on: October 11, 2022, 09:52:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 11, 2022, 09:07:49 AM
     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."


    Ok, thanks for clearing that up. 

    The canon doesn't prove what you want it to prove. I don't know many BODers - can't think of one, actually - who hold that the sacraments are "superfluous," which is the gloss on what "necessary" means in the text. That this is so is clear from the Canon V on baptism itself from the same session:

    Quote
    If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.

    Again, I don't know of any BODers who say that baptism is "optional." The "optional, that is" is similar to the gloss of "but superfluous," and explains the use of "necessity" in context. 

    Additionally, you have the same appearance of "or" in Session 7, Canon 4, so that doesn't support you, as the same argument of the universal reading of Catholic saints and theologians of the "or" being disjunctive in Session VI, Chapter IV would apply equally well here. 

    DR



     
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14732
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #292 on: October 11, 2022, 10:20:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on October 11, 2022, 09:52:50 AM
    Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

    The canon doesn't prove what you want it to prove. I don't know many BODers - can't think of one, actually - who hold that the sacraments are "superfluous," which is the gloss on what "necessary" means in the text. That this is so is clear from the Canon V on baptism itself from the same session:

    Again, I don't know of any BODers who say that baptism is "optional." The "optional, that is" is similar to the gloss of "but superfluous," and explains the use of "necessity" in context.
    But Trent condemns with anathema whoever says the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but superfluous - no matter how you say it.

    This means that if you say that a BOD is salvific, you are saying exactly that the sacrament is superfluous because you are saying that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, which is the whole idea behind a BOD.

    Quote
    Additionally, you have the same appearance of "or" in Session 7, Canon 4, so that doesn't support you, as the same argument of the universal reading of Catholic saints and theologians of the "or" being disjunctive in Session VI, Chapter IV would apply equally well here.
    No, you are wrong here DR.

    There is no sense to focus on the word "or" when you should be focused on the 2 words "without." Do that and it becomes quite clear that Trent says without the sacrament or without the desire = no justification. Trent clearly condemns both as obtaining justification through faith alone.

    As I posted earlier....This Canon says "No sacrament or no desire = condemned, as the obtaining of justification through faith alone.

    EXACTLY what do you think that Trent is condemning with anathema in this canon? Please explain.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14732
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #293 on: October 11, 2022, 04:15:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 08, 2022, 06:19:11 AM
    Here's a question asked a few years ago by ihsv, a poster I liked a lot. I cannot remember if it was ever answered but I don't think so.

    "Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?

    Yes or no."
    There should be a crickets emoji.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4718/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #294 on: October 11, 2022, 04:56:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 11, 2022, 04:15:53 PM
    There should be a crickets emoji.
    I agree.

    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #295 on: October 11, 2022, 06:11:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 08, 2022, 06:19:11 AM
    Here's a question asked a few years ago by ihsv, a poster I liked a lot. I cannot remember if it was ever answered but I don't think so.

    "Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?

    Yes or no."

    If something is possible, yes, it "can" happen.

    Therefore, the answer is yes.


    Quote
    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. 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.


    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #296 on: October 11, 2022, 06:13:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 11, 2022, 10:20:07 AM

    EXACTLY what do you think that Trent is condemning with anathema in this canon? Please explain.

    I don't have much time at the moment, but consider this phrase: justification by "faith alone without desire for the sacrament."

    It's condemning the quoted phrase without the blue part. Most Prots don't consider the sacrament, or even a desire for it, necessary. 
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14732
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #297 on: October 12, 2022, 05:07:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    If something is possible, yes, it "can" happen.

    Therefore, the answer is yes.
    Because this is the divine revelation of Our Lord Who said in no uncertain terms that it "cannot" happen, and Trent literally referenced and applied those words saying it "cannot" happen, I do not understand how you can say there is a possibility that it "can" happen.

    You then quoted Trent's catechism:
    Quote
    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. 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
    Ok, the catechism first off states that there is no danger of death involved, if there were, then the adult must be be baptized asap like infants who are more prone shall we say, to die at any time. However, when there actually *is* the danger of death, the very next chapter teaches that "In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once."

    To continue with  the first part where it says: "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."

    Note that "grace and righteousness" are attributes of the living, not the dead. Neither Trent nor it's catechism are talking about the attainment of salvation here, which is an attribute of the dead, not the living, which means quoting this part of the catechism to show it's contrariness to John 3:5 and Trent's application of it, is a non sequitur.

    Also note that there is no mention of accidental death, only an "unforeseen accident," which could mean literally any unforeseen event *except death* that impedes the catechumen from receiving the sacrament as planned, anything from the priest having to reschedule due to an emergency, to the catechumen's car not starting, to whatever other "unforeseen accident" you can think of, except unforeseen accidental death.

    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14732
    • Reputation: +6068/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #298 on: October 12, 2022, 05:17:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on October 11, 2022, 06:13:52 PM
    Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 11:20:07 AM
    Quote
    EXACTLY what do you think that Trent is condemning with anathema in this canon? Please explain.

    I don't have much time at the moment, but consider this phrase: justification by "faith alone without desire for the sacrament."

    It's condemning the quoted phrase without the blue part. Most Prots don't consider the sacrament, or even a desire for it, necessary.
    Ok, I'm not completely understanding your answer, but what else is new lol

    First, I read that canon as condemning two ideas:
    1) the idea that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation is condemned.
    2) the idea that justification is obtained through faith alone, which means justification is obtained without the sacraments or without a desire for the sacraments is condemned.

    What happens to your answer when you replace your blue part with: "without the sacrament?" I believe it falls apart, but I am not sure I understand your answer.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
    « Reply #299 on: October 12, 2022, 06:31:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 12, 2022, 05:17:38 AM
    I don't have much time at the moment, but consider this phrase: justification by "faith alone without desire for the sacrament."

    It's condemning the quoted phrase without the blue part. Most Prots don't consider the sacrament, or even a desire for it, necessary.

    Ok, I'm not completely understanding your answer, but what else is new lol

    First, I read that canon as condemning two ideas:
    1) the idea that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation is condemned.
    2) the idea that justification is obtained through faith alone, which means justification is obtained without the sacraments or without a desire for the sacraments is condemned.

    What happens to your answer when you replace your blue part with: "without the sacrament?" I believe it falls apart, but I am not sure I understand your answer.

    I would say we agree on what the canon says, only you read "necessary" as meaning the actual receipt of the sacrament is required, whereas Trent says a desire for the sacrament maintains the necessity of the sacrament without the receipt.

    In order for me to have a desire for something, that something is necessary; the thing desired is necessary for the desire for it.

    Think of it in terms of a spiritual communion at Mass. Could you have such without the Eucharist? The Eucharist is necessary to spiritual communion with it.


    Quote
    2) the idea that justification is obtained through faith alone, which means justification is obtained without the sacraments or without a desire for the sacraments is condemned.

    As I said, I agree, but, again, it comes down to the "or," which, again and again and again, is "disjunctive," and so agree all our fellow Catholic saints and theologians who have considered the issue since Trent, even Father Feeney.

    I'll rephrase my hastily constructed attempt at explanation from my last post: the "faith alone" that is being condemned is just that, faith alone without a desire for the sacraments. Faith with at least a desire for the sacrament of baptism as sufficient for justification is not being condemned (Trent teaches it), because then "faith" is not "alone," since it is coupled with a desire for the sacrament.

    So Trent: faith with a desire for the sacrament is necessary. The removal of the blue leaves faith alone, and that is what is condemned.

    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.
    Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21
    « previous next »