Author Topic: Justification by BOD and Being Born Again (Read 3480 times)

bowler · « **on:** January 18, 2014, 06:27:46 PM »

I was having a discussion on another thread and the person bailed out just before I finished answering him, therefore I started a new thread here on the subject you can read below:

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: SouthpawLink
It would appear that there is more to the passage:

Yes there is, and maybe we can discuss the rest another time because the other parts of his teaching on BOD being defide will open a food fight here on CI. Thanks however for reminding me though of the BOB part, since I was meaning to start a new thread precisely on that part, again I will ignore it for now since it will open a whole new can of worms here.

So here is the part we'll use for this discussion:

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of desire [lit. blowing], is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (juxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of desire [lit. blowing], because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)

Now, St. Alphonsus says that this justification before receiving the sacrament, does not imprint the character of baptism, nor does this justification remit the full liability of punishment.

Now I asked you, How can a person be justified without being born again? How can a person be born again without the sacrament of baptism?

St. Alphonsus Liguori describes his idea of how a person can be justified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, however he says that the person does not get the imprint the character of baptism, nor does this justification remit the full liability of punishment. Now, that is not being born again!

Trent declares that "So unless they are born again in Christ, they never would be justified".

Trent also teaches that the grace of baptism, spiritual rebirth, being ‘born again’ provides not only justification and the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of every punishment due to sin.

Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. for, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.”

Trent clearly says that to be justified everyone must be born again, a grace which includes the remission of every temporal punishment due to sin.

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, So unless they are born again in Christ, they never would be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.”[/

What St. Alphonsus describes as his idea of how a person can be justified before receiving the sacrament of baptism is contrary to Trent. He says that the "justification" of baptism of desire does not provide the grace of spiritual rebirth, of being born again, which Trent says everyone must have to be justified!

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2014, 07:25:14 PM »

At least give the whole passage, bowler:

"Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ['fluminis'], of desire ['flaminis' = wind] and of blood.

"We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it'.

"Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ['non ita stricte'] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

"It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ" (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7).

Good luck with your thread.

bowler · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2014, 05:10:26 AM »

St. Alphonsus Liguori's concept of how a person can be justified before receiving the sacrament of baptism, does not include the imprint the character of baptism, nor does this justification remit the full liability of punishment. Now, that is not being born again!

Trent declares that "So unless they are born again in Christ, they never would be justified".

Quote

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, So unless they are born again in Christ, they never would be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.”

Trent also teaches that the grace of baptism, spiritual rebirth, being ‘born again’ provides not only justification and the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of every punishment due to sin.

Quote

Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. for, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.”

What St. Alphonsus describes as his idea of how a person can be justified before receiving the sacrament of baptism is contrary to Trent. He says that the "justification" of baptism of desire does not provide the grace of spiritual rebirth, of being born again, while Trent clearly says that to be justified everyone must be born again, a grace which includes the remission of every temporal punishment due to sin.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2014, 09:25:11 AM »

You are quite correct, bowler.

St. Alphonsus gets it wrong here. If BoD does not supply "with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed", then how does it count as Baptism, i.e. as supplying the grace of Baptism? In no way then would it be a rebirth according to the definition of Trent.

As to its not supplying remission of the full liability of temporal punishment, again there's no theological basis for any of that. It's simply MADE UP. It's all speculation. It's based on the idea that BoD is somehow less than actual Sacramental Baptism and a subsequent grasping for straws to show how Baptism still means something after creating this notion of BoD.

In fact, I am convinced of the EXACT OPPOSITE. I believe that BoD and BoB can cancel out some of the temporal debt, or temporal suffering in eternity, due to sin, but can never overcome the loss of sanctifying grace. That can explain what St. Ambrose and the Council of Trent meant in dealing with the subject.

ONLY Sacramental Baptism can endow the human soul with the faculties to have supernatural faith, hope, and charity. It is incapable in its natural state, with its natural created faculties, to sustain the supernatural virtues. And it's the Sacramental CHARACTER which is what supplies these faculties, or, rather, the Sacramental Character IS those faculties, without which we cannot have the supernatural life of God. We can never see God or know Him as He is without these additional supernatural faculties.

I believe that natural good deeds and acts of virtue can cancel out natural bad deeds and sins to moderate or modify the actual extent of the temporal / sensible suffering that a person experiences in eternity.

I believe that a monolithic notion of hell is one of the biggest reasons people resist the rejection of BoD; there's this bizarre fuzzy idea of hell being a single cauldron of flame in which a kindly old Jєωιѕн grandmother who sacrifices her entire life for her children and never hurt anyone would be burning right next to mass murderers, etc. ... in the same place, to the same degree. That's simply not true. Even one of the EENS definitions explicitly call out the different degrees of hell.

That's why Father Cekada, for example, ADMITS that his rejection of a stricter view of EENS comes from his emotional refusal to admit that the virtuous non-Catholic could suffer in hell for all eternity. With a proper understanding of hell, it's no longer a real obstacle.

bowler · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2014, 09:47:51 AM »

Practically every answer from BoDers here on CI are end runs, actions to circuмvent, bypass, the impediment of detailed discussion. They are actions to avoid a difficult situation by dodging it without confronting it directly. Never once do they get into the details of BOD, relying instead on quoting gratuitous statements that bypass all detailed discussions on the subject.

1) it wouldn't be fair for God to not have BOD
2) You think you are more intelligent than all others who came before you
3) You are saying that the Church taught errors for centuries
4) the ambiguous Valentinian oration (in which of course they ignore the detailed discussions).
5)St. Thomas’s quotes in favor of BOD, (but they ignore his quotes against it and go further and ignore St. Thomas altogether in their belief in salvation in any religion by implicit faith).
6) And finally their really only source of proof, the theologians from 1800’s and on (who happened to hold the opinion of implicit faith, which is the foundation of Vatican II’s revolution, which "trad" BODers also ignore).

All the while they say that all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and BOD must not be understood as they are written (See CI thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written"), THE BIGGEST END RUN OF ALL!

If BODers were to submit an actual genuine theological argument for BoD, it would make for a real interesting debate here on CI. Instead, at most all we get are cut and paste jobs using Fr. Fenton from the 1950's, which they don’t understand themselves and therefore can’t discuss in detail. Once again, just another end run.

I'm still waiting for a rational argument from the BoDers here on CI on the details.

This thread discusses details of BOD, where is there one CI BODer that addresses it? Not a one.