Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 42089 times)

Vanguard · « **Reply #105 on:** August 24, 2022, 12:08:21 PM »

Maybe this helps: Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.’”

Stubborn · « **Reply #106 on:** August 24, 2022, 12:13:16 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2022, 11:23:51 AM

Desire (a true desire/vow by a catechumen) CAN justify; even Fr Feeney admits this.

Whatever anyone else teaches, Trent does not teach that desire can justify, Trent teaches that desire (a true desire/vow by a catechumen) cannot justify.

I know that Fr. Feeney admits as much, but I believe he is wrong on this point. The reason I believe he is wrong is because Trent says justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, or the desire for the sacrament.

Stubborn · « **Reply #107 on:** August 24, 2022, 12:23:33 PM »

Quote from: Sgt Rock USMC on August 24, 2022, 12:06:44 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I was always led to believe that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament AND the desire for it.

I read somewhere that the time leading up to Trent saw the clergy and people "forcing" Baptism on unwilling participants. I had always assumed Trent was clarifying that in order to be justified, one must have a true desire to be baptized, AND receive the sacrament.

To your point, Stubborn, I agree with you regarding the Sacrament = Justification. However, the additional portion of the sentence "....or the desire thereof..." merely indicates the two points are required (for justification). Meaning, one CANNOT receive the Sacrament of Baptism without the desire to receive it.

OR,

Can one receive the Sacrament of Baptism WITHOUT the desire to receive it?

Whether or not it means AND (which that is not what it says, it literally says OR) is taking off in another direction - but yes, the sacrament and the desire are both necessary, as Trent's catechisms states that the Church cannot be mistaken here.

But in order for the desire alone to be efficacious for justification, the words "or the desire thereof" would have to be something along the lines of "but the desire thereof suffices."

As in: "[justification] cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, but justification can be effected with the desire thereof"
This, for whatever reason, is they way people actually read and understand it. Who knows why, but there it is.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #108 on:** August 24, 2022, 12:43:00 PM »

Stubborn, there's 2 issues to the whole BOD debate:

1. Can desire/vow alone provide justification?
a. Many saints say 'yes'; Trent does not clear up this answer. An honest reading of it, (especially in Latin), does not definitely say.
b. Even if one agrees that a 'yes' is a liberal answer, I do not think a 'yes' is a major problem, considering all of the circuмstantial evidence which agrees with it.
c. The proper translation is 'vow' and this would ONLY apply to catechumens who have ALSO fulfilled previous requirements of Trent, for baptismal preparations.
d. Conclusion - the # of people who fall into this category is very, very small.

2. Can justification provide salvation/heaven?
a. Absolutely, positively not. Trent doesn't even hint that this is possible.
b. Some saints propose it's possible but this was before Trent.
c. These saints also contradict themselves, by saying BODers have to go to purgatory first, or some say they don't.
d. St Alphonsus is the only major saint post-Trent who argues it's possible but 1) I question the translation because 2) it contradicts his other writings.
e. Conclusion - There is no major teaching (i.e. it's not 'de fide') that an unbaptized, justified person goes to heaven. The evidence says they go to Limbo.

Being with how many people today hold a VERY liberal (probably heretical/pelagian) view of BOD, I am willing to grant the "justification by desire/vow" only for the sake of pulling these people back to sanity and orthodoxy. Because if you just 100% reject "desire/vows" they will mentally shut down and stop thinking, so they won't listen at all.

In this day and age...I don't see much of a danger to admitting the *possibility* of a formal catechumen (who has rejected Hinduism, Muslimism, Judiaism, Protestantism, Paganism, etc) and who formally, openly, explicitly desires baptism and is taking classes to become a catholic. Anyone who fails to meet any of these standards is not a "catechumen" and BOD would not apply to them.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #109 on:** August 24, 2022, 12:47:40 PM »

Quote

I read somewhere that the time leading up to Trent saw the clergy and people "forcing" Baptism on unwilling participants. I had always assumed Trent was clarifying that in order to be justified, one must have a true desire to be baptized, AND receive the sacrament.

I agree that this would be a *strict* reading of Trent and makes the most sense, considering the historical context of Trent happening during the protestant revolt chaos.

However, post-Trent, you have St Alphonsus and multiple catechisms saying otherwise, so (until the Church definitively rules) it's a debated issue (but a very narrow one).

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 42089 times)

Vanguard

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

Stubborn

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

Stubborn

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

Pax Vobis

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)

Pax Vobis

Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)