Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 42183 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #120 on:** August 24, 2022, 03:43:45 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2022, 02:57:11 PM

Well, church doctrine is not based on opinion. There is a small, but consistent, historical speculation that a true desire for baptism (by a catechumen) can provide grace, just like we believe that a true desire for repentance can remit sin. Many of the Church Fathers believed such, so it's not modernism. As did St Thomas, St Augustine, St Bellarmine, St Alphonsus and Fr Feeney. It's not clear cut, and no one HAS to believe in this exception, but...there's enough evidence (outside of Trent) to interpret Trent in this way.

Had the Church, through Trent, wanted to anathematize BOD, She could have, but She did not. Does this prove BOD is 'de fide'? Of course not, but it's another reason why there's gray area.

I have to disagree that "many" Church Fathers believed in BoD. Most of them explicitly rejected it. We have St. Augustine who tentatively floated the idea in his youth but then retracted it, and St. Ambrose, who I argue did not hold it in its modern sense (and elsewhere explicitly stated that even good/devout catechumens cannot be saved if they died without the Sacrament). That's it. I don't grant St. Ambrose, and then St. Augustine retracted. So what's left?

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #121 on:** August 24, 2022, 03:45:01 PM »

Quote from: songbird on August 24, 2022, 02:36:40 PM

Did Holy Mother Church give to Her souls a definition for EENS. Or was it a explanation? Definition of the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church. IF the definition was not completed, then we have problems.

Absolutely She did.

Quote

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“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… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

And more: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/chair-of-peter-outside-the-church-no-salvation/

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #122 on:** August 24, 2022, 03:51:11 PM »

Quote

Ok, so what you are actually saying Pax, is that the one source that infallibly teaches of the necessity of the sacrament, Trent, you cannot use to prove what you are saying. And that makes sense.

Not what i'm saying. BOD does not provide salvation. Nothing in Trent says so. Anyone who says otherwise (which is a lot of people) is wrong.

But can a formal, catechumen (1), with a legitimate, true, and holy desire for baptism (which as Trent teaches, includes sorrow for sins and repentance of life) obtain justification (i.e. remission of sins)? Yes, Trent does (indirectly) say so, in its schema on proper disposition for baptism.

(1) a catechumen, as defined by Trent is a person who:
a. Has totally, formally and openly rejected any prior religion and/or paganism.
b. Has openly and formally been taught (and believes in) the Incarnation, Trinity and Redemption.
c. Has openly been taught about the Church and baptism and understands, accepts and desires to enter the Catholic Faith, under the Pope, by way of baptism.

Errors:
Anyone who says that a person who does not fulfill the above 'catechumen' definition can still have BOD, is in error.
Anyone who says that such a non-catechumen can be justified by desire, is in error.
Anyone who says that a non-catechumen who still *identifies* (and also who has not rejected) a false religion (or atheism) can be justified, is a quasi-heretic, per Trent.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #123 on:** August 24, 2022, 03:54:42 PM »

Quote

I have to disagree that "many" Church Fathers believed in BoD. Most of them explicitly rejected it. We have St. Augustine who tentatively floated the idea in his youth but then retracted it, and St. Ambrose, who I argue did not hold it in its modern sense (and elsewhere explicitly stated that even good/devout catechumens cannot be saved if they died without the Sacrament). That's it. I don't grant St. Ambrose, and then St. Augustine retracted. So what's left?

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant the "orthodox view" of BoD (i.e. justification of a catechumen), which really needs a new name (i.e. justification by desire).

I was saying that St Ambrose and St Augustine (and other Church Fathers) spoke of "washing" (i.e. justification) by desire for martyrs and/or catechumens.

Stubborn · « **Reply #124 on:** August 24, 2022, 05:14:54 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2022, 03:51:11 PM

Not what i'm saying. BOD does not provide salvation. Nothing in Trent says so. Anyone who says otherwise (which is a lot of people) is wrong.

Of course BOD does not provide salvation - I never mentioned salvation because we are discussing justification.

Quote

But can a formal, catechumen (1), with a legitimate, true, and holy desire for baptism (which as Trent teaches, includes sorrow for sins and repentance of life) obtain justification (i.e. remission of sins)? Yes, Trent does (indirectly) say so, in its schema on proper disposition for baptism.

No where and no how does Trent say yes, certainly not indirectly. Feel free to post the quote from Trent if that's what you believe tho. But I do not expect you can.

A few chapter past the one I've been quoting from, in chapter seven it says quite directly:

"Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God
and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God
who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of
promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most
beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the
exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most
holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the
Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of
faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;" To which you want to add "except sincere catechumens."

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video) (Read 42183 times)

Ladislaus

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

DigitalLogos

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)

Stubborn

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