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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 61

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 42250 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #110 on: August 24, 2022, 12:55:58 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 24, 2022, 07:40:04 AM
Bellarmine rejected the notion of BoD to anyone other than catechumens.  Is that what you believe about BoD?

Some argue that Bellarmine was excessively zealous in his theology that the Church is a visible society, and the only reason he allows admittance to the Church for catechumens is because in their formal status they are visibly connected with the Church.  Cf. Rahner's comments along the same lines about the Church Fathers.

Of course, this causes a problem for Bellarmine's own ecclesiology where he clearly stated that the Sacrament of Baptism (participating in the Church's Sacraments) is one of the criteria for membership in this visible society.

Bellarmine never explained the contradiction.  Others have speculated that one could be imperfectly united to the Church by meeting SOME of the criteria for visible membership, but the way Bellarmine explained it, one was excluded from the visible society if any ONE of his criteria were not met.  So there's a lingering unexplained contradiction in Bellarmine.

And the key to the contradiction can be found in Bellarmine's dealing with the catechumen problem.  His main justification for this exception (contradictory to his own criteria) was that "it would seem too harsh" to say otherwise.  Unfortunately, even the Doctors occasionally succuмb to emotion-driven theology.

In any case, since you promote Bellarmine, do you limit BoD to formal catechumens as he did?

First, I don't "promote" Bellarmine. You say that because I posted a quote that contained a reference to Bellarmine? That's ridiculous.

I posted the Brownson quote because it's absolutely sound, and accurate. There is a lot of murkiness regarding BOD, and the Church hasn't defined its parameters. What is not murky, and what is spot on, is Brownson's recognition that "it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione." Which necessarily implies that is it possible to be saved with such a disposition. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing more is certain. This is what I have called the "core" principle.

Beyond that, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

God can justify and save through what is well called the "in voto et proxima dispositione." The Church recognizes that. One who dies in that state is joined to the Church and the communion of saints. We have not been given any further revelation. This is where Trent, with it's "or the desire" stops. And the Roman Catechism tells us that can happen with a catechumen. This is as far as the Church has gone with confidence and assurance.

And please everyone - not directed at you, Lad, per se, as you have a more developed distinction - but PLEASE stop saying one cannot be saved by being "justified." It is one thing to say that after a justification by "desire" one will go on to receive the sacrament and thus all the saved will be baptized. That's a pious and defensible belief. However, if you pronounce "heresy" or outright reject the possibility of a justification or salvation "in voto et proxima dispositione," you're at the least being rash and going too far, if not being heretical.

If you say that a state of justification is not sufficient for salvation, you might think you're being very Catholic in elevating the sacrament, but you're oddly, in my view, demeaning the Holy Ghost.


Quote
Trent, Session VI, CHAPTER IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.




Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #111 on: August 24, 2022, 01:05:56 PM »
Quote
There is a lot of murkiness regarding BOD, and the Church hasn't defined its parameters.
100% false.  Trent defined, in very minute detail, what is required as preparation for baptism (i.e. proper disposition).


Quote
God can justify and save through what is well called the "in voto et proxima dispositione."
Justify only, not save.  Trent defined all this in its very long, detailed schemas on Baptism and Justification.  It never mentioned "salvation" only justification.


Quote
The Church recognizes that. One who dies in that state is joined to the Church and the communion of saints. We have not been given any further revelation. This is where Trent, with it's "or the desire" stops. And the Roman Catechism tells us that can happen with a catechumen. This is as far as the Church has gone with confidence and assurance.
Trent is very detailed.  You explain it and give the impression that there is some mystery to it all.  There's really not.

Trent defined what it takes to be a catechumen.  A catechumen is the ONLY class of people who can have "true desire" for baptism.  Thus, only catechumens can receive justification.



Quote
but PLEASE stop saying one cannot be saved by being "justified."
Nowhere in Trent does it say these 2 things are equal and nowhere does Trent say one can be saved by justification alone.  NOWHERE.


Quote
However, if you pronounce "heresy" or outright reject the possibility of a justification or salvation "in voto et proxima dispositione," you're at the least being rash and going too far, if not being heretical.
:facepalm:  Justification and salvation are 2 completely different and separate theological concepts.  It's heresy to explain them as similar or synonyms.  They couldn't be more different.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #112 on: August 24, 2022, 01:07:32 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis 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.
Pax, I already posted Trent teaching desire or vow alone does not justify, if you say that Trent does not teach that, or that Trent teaches that a desire or vow alone can justify, will you please provide the actual quote - here is the link.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #113 on: August 24, 2022, 01:11:41 PM »
Stubborn, all this has been posted before, in Latin.  There is gray area, despite your claims.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #114 on: August 24, 2022, 01:34:22 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2022, 01:11:41 PM
Stubborn, all this has been posted before, in Latin.  There is gray area, despite your claims.
My claims? I posted the actual teaching from Trent which is quite clear imo, not the least bit gray.

Do you read / understand Trent as teaching that "Justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration but can be effected with the desire thereof?"  Is that how you read / understand it?

Even in the canon when they teach about the Sacraments In General, they do not teach justification will be effected with a desire/vow. In that canon, Trent condemns with anathema anyone who saith that without the sacrament or without a desire/vow, justification can be obtained. BODers have turned that teaching into saying that a desire not only justifies, it's certainly salvific.

Again, please post the quotes from Trent, if you cannot, then please admit it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 61
« previous next »