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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 41912 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 #295 on: October 11, 2022, 06:11:10 PM »
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

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #296 on: October 11, 2022, 06:13:52 PM »
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

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #297 on: October 12, 2022, 05:07:57 AM »
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

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #298 on: October 12, 2022, 05:17:38 AM »
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

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #299 on: October 12, 2022, 06:31:32 AM »
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
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61
« previous next »