Author Topic: Limbo of Adults? (Read 8844 times)

Angelus · « **Reply #45 on:** August 19, 2021, 10:55:07 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 19, 2021, 04:36:00 AM

No Angelus, what you are doing is reading into Trent the exact opposite of what Trent actually says. It is really so simple that it is amazing that so many people do this.....

Trent says that without the sacrament or the desire thereof that justification *cannot* be effected. If Trent did teach, or even mention a BOD, then Trent would have *had* to say, without the sacrament or the desire thereof that justification *can* be effected.

"...since the promulgation of the Gospel, [justification] 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".

Make sense now?

I think the only thing that can make sense of what you have said to me is that you think, incorrectly, that I am saying the following:
The effects of the Sacrament of Baptism EQUAL The effects of "baptism of desire." I AM NOT SAYING THAT.
I am saying this:
The effects of the Sacrament of Baptism DO NOT EQUAL The effects of the "baptism of desire." This is what Ott stated and what the Church teaches.
You and others seem to think that because the word "baptism" is in the phrase "baptism of desire," that it means something like "the Sacrament of Baptism of desire" or, put another way, that one gains all the effects of sacramental baptism, even though there is not proper matter and form, as long as the person "desires" the Sacrament of Baptism. AGAIN, I am not saying that, and I never have said that in this discussion.
The phrase "Baptism of Desire" is a technical term in dogmatic theology with a very precise definition. Here is that definition again:
Quote

Quote

Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

Do you see that? The Baptismal character IS NOT IMPRINTED with "baptism of desire." And "baptism of desire" IS NOT the gateway to the other sacraments. So, clearly, "baptism of desire" has some overlap with the Sacrament, specifically regarding remission of sins, but it is deficient in certain fundamental ways when compared to the Sacrament of Baptism. Also, its method of action is different from the Sacrament: ex opera operantis vs ex opere operato.
Make sense now?

Angelus · « **Reply #46 on:** August 19, 2021, 11:59:36 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 19, 2021, 05:20:22 AM

Please stop promoting Ott as if he were the Magisterium. Vast majority of theologians during the past 100+ years were Modernists. Why do you think there wasn’t a peep out of them when Vatican II issued its decrees? I’m not particularly interested in what Ott has to say. At least quote someone like St. Alphonsus, would you? I disagree with St. Alphonsus on this issue as well, but at least I respect him ... unlike Ott.

So I guess that means you have never read Ott's book. It is a technical manual, a traditional textbook for dogmatic theology students from 1952. He provides Magisterial sources in his discussion. I never claimed that his opinions were "the Magisterium."

Further, Ott was not a Modernist. Far from it. Read Louie V's take on Ott's Fundamentals here. And I guess Bishop Pivarunas hadn't gotten memo about Ott's Modernism either.

I wonder...are you an expert Latinist or are you reading St. Alphonsus and "the Church Fathers" in English translation? If so, have you ever considered that you might be missing some nuances in those texts? Not only was Ott an expert Latinist, but he was the premier authority on dogmatic theology in the Roman Catholic Church in the 20th century.

I will try to make the same point that I have been making. You and many people on Cathinfo have a problem with "baptism of desire." And if "baptism of desire" actually meant what you claim that it means, then I too would have a problem with "baptism of desire." But you and those people are not using the proper definition of "baptism of desire." Ott provides the proper definition derived from the Magisterial sources. Here's a simplistic way of describing the misunderstanding:

"Baptism of desire" DOES NOT MEAN "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism," which the "desire" alone would confer all the effects of the actual Sacrament. Only a Modernist (intentionally) or an uninformed Catholic (unintentionally) would think this.

"Baptism of desire" DOES MEAN "the desire for the bath of regeneration" (cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4), which confers extra-Sacramental graces depending on the subjective disposition of the recipient.

The Sacrament of Baptism, in both operation and effects, is different from "baptism of desire," as the Church understands it. The Sacrament of Baptism is to "baptism of desire" as "Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus" is to "John's Baptism" (Acts 19:1-6). You can also find this same distinction mentioned in Canon 1 of the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism at the Council of Trent, which states:

Canon 1. If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema.

I know you are not saying what has been anathematized. But you seem to wrongly think that everyone who defends BoD (rightly understood) is saying what has been anathematized. This is a misunderstanding (at least as applied to me). For example, I do not think that BoD confers the same effects as the Sacrament of Baptism, but I do think BoD does something important for those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism. Maybe this means that they are in a state similar to limbo when they die, which is why I have been talking about this subject in this thread. You seem to agree that BoD might be enough to get someone to limbo as well, right?

Marion · « **Reply #47 on:** August 19, 2021, 12:01:37 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 10:36:54 AM

I have read cuм hoc tempore. In fact, I quoted from it here in another post in this thread. I will quote it again in Ott's words (the words in red below are directly from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4):
Quote
Since you seem to imply that the discussion of "Preparation" (I assume you mean cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 6) contradicts what I quoted above from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4, could you provide a quote or some form of rational argument to make your point?

To live and grow, yeast needs moisture, warmth, food and nutrients.

The statement "yeast cannot live and grow without moisture or warmth", does neither mean

- that moisture suffices for yeast to live and grow
- that warmth suffices for yeast to live and grow
- that warmth plus moisture suffices for yeast to live and grow

Moisture and warmth are necessary for yeast to live and grow, but moisture and/or warmth are not sufficient for yeast to live and grow.

Same situation with justification. Not even the laver of regeneration plus the desire thereof are sufficient for justification. cuм hoc tempore explains that additionally a preperation is necessary.

"Justification is not possible without X or Y" means that "X or Y" is a necessary condition for justification, and does not mean that "X or Y" is a sufficient condition for justification.

Conclusion: The Council of Trent teaches that the desire for the laver of regeneration is necessary, but not sufficient for justification.

P.S.: Please note that the well known debate whether X alone or alternatively Y alone are sufficent, is to no avail, since not even X plus Y are sufficient. (X: laver, Y: desire thereof)

Stubborn · « **Reply #48 on:** August 19, 2021, 12:18:53 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 10:55:07 AM

I am saying this:
The effects of the Sacrament of Baptism DO NOT EQUAL The effects of the "baptism of desire." This is what Ott stated and what the Church teaches.
You and others seem to think that because the word "baptism" is in the phrase "baptism of desire," that it means something like "the Sacrament of Baptism of desire" or, put another way, that one gains all the effects of sacramental baptism, even though there is not proper matter and form, as long as the person "desires" the Sacrament of Baptism. AGAIN, I am not saying that, and I never have said that in this discussion.

Ok, just so we're not talking past each other, the Church at Trent teaches; no sacrament or desire means no justification. Nowhere does Trent teach justification is certainly attainable with either the sacrament alone or the desire alone.

So it is in this sense that sacramental baptism certainly does not equal a BOD.

Agree?

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 10:55:07 AM

The phrase "Baptism of Desire" is a technical term in dogmatic theology with a very precise definition. Here is that definition again:
Quote

Quote
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
Do you see that? The Baptismal character IS NOT IMPRINTED with "baptism of desire." And "baptism of desire" IS NOT the gateway to the other sacraments. So, clearly, "baptism of desire" has some overlap with the Sacrament, specifically regarding remission of sins, but it is deficient in certain fundamental ways when compared to the Sacrament of Baptism. Also, its method of action is different from the Sacrament: ex opera operantis vs ex opere operato.
Make sense now?

Sorry no, in light of Trent's teaching, it does not make sense.

I see the quote, but where does Ott get this idea that a BOD "bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin", when Trent explicitly says that this cannot happen without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament - as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The overlap comes only when both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are applied at the same time, as Trent's catechism puts it:

Quote

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire
and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be
administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence
we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual
without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have,
since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

So for adults, Trent teaches that in order for justification to be effected, both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are necessary, and also, in order for this to occur, the faithful are to be instructed in this.

I'm only quoting Trent and it's catechism, which means, as Lad said, Ott and many others, got it wrong....or Trent got it wrong, which is not possible.

Matthew · « **Reply #49 on:** August 19, 2021, 12:25:15 PM »

I'm just here to say:

There is no Limbo of adults. Only unbaptized children under the age of reason. Once reason has been reached -- not age 7, but when Reason is activated in the child, which DOES VARY by person -- it's either heaven or hell.

Children have gone to Hell as well as serious Purgatory. Read the works of St. John Bosco.

Angelus · « **Reply #50 on:** August 19, 2021, 12:54:00 PM »

Quote from: Marion on August 19, 2021, 12:01:37 PM

To live and grow, yeast needs moisture, warmth, food and nutrients.

The statement "yeast cannot live and grow without moisture or warmth", does neither mean

- that moisture suffices for yeast to live and grow
- that warmth suffices for yeast to live and grow
- that warmth plus moisture suffices for yeast to live and grow

Moisture and warmth are necessary for yeast to live and grow, but moisture and/or warmth are not sufficient for yeast to live and grow.

Same situation with justification. Not even the laver of regeneration plus the desire thereof are sufficient for justification. cuм hoc tempore explains that additionally a preperation is necessary.

"Justification is not possible without X or Y" means that "X or Y" is a necessary condition for justification, and does not mean that "X or Y" is a sufficient condition for justification.

Conclusion: The Council of Trent teaches that the desire for the laver of regeneration is necessary, but not sufficient for justification.

P.S.: Please note that the well known debate whether X alone or alternatively Y alone are sufficent, is to no avail, since not even X plus Y are sufficient. (X: laver, Y: desire thereof)

I think we are talking past each other, again. I agree that "cuм hoc tempore explains that additionally a preparation [for justification] is necessary." The "preparation" which is spoken of in Chapter is "cooperation with divine Grace." When I used the word "sufficient" in was in the context of the quote from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4 related to the larger discussion of "salvation" vs. "justification." I said:

Quote

The Council of Trent doctrine that I quoted from Ott DOES NOT refer to "salvation." Rather, it refers to "justification." Salvation and justification are different. The Church has always said that BoD is sufficient for "justification." The Church has never said the BoD is sufficient for "salvation."

I was saying that in the short quote I provided from cuм hoc tempore, chapter 4, ("the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof") two options were given as "sufficient" for justification: 1) the laver of regeneration or 2) the desire for the laver of regeneration. The phrase uses the word "or." Because of that, I was saying that cuм hoc tempore, chapter 4 states that either of those to conditions is "sufficient," meaning that both conditions together (which would need the conjunction "and") are not necessary for justification. I did not mean to imply that there are no other conditions, such as "cooperating with divine Grace" (discussed in Chapters 5 and 6), that also necessary conditions of justification. Sorry for the confusion.

Marion · « **Reply #51 on:** August 19, 2021, 01:00:33 PM »

@Angelus

I recommend that you better take yourself enough time to study cuм hoc tempore on the whole and in detail. You can learn e.g., that one necessary condition is to hear the faith.

Angelus · « **Reply #52 on:** August 19, 2021, 01:14:01 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 19, 2021, 12:18:53 PM

Ok, just so we're not talking past each other, the Church at Trent teaches; no sacrament or desire means no justification. Nowhere does Trent teach justification is certainly attainable with either the sacrament alone or the desire alone.

So it is in this sense that sacramental baptism certainly does not equal a BOD.

Agree?

Do you see that? The Baptismal character IS NOT IMPRINTED with "baptism of desire." And "baptism of desire" IS NOT the gateway to the other sacraments. So, clearly, "baptism of desire" has some overlap with the Sacrament, specifically regarding remission of sins, but it is deficient in certain fundamental ways when compared to the Sacrament of Baptism. Also, its method of action is different from the Sacrament: ex opera operantis vs ex opere operato.
Make sense now?
Sorry no, in light of Trent's teaching, it does not make sense.

I see the quote, but where does Ott get this idea that a BOD "bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin", when Trent explicitly says that this cannot happen without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament - as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The overlap comes only when both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are applied at the same time, as Trent's catechism puts it:

So for adults, Trent teaches that in order for justification to be effected, both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are necessary, and also, in order for this to occur, the faithful are to be instructed in this.

I'm only quoting Trent and it's catechism, which means, as Lad said, Ott and many others, got it wrong....or Trent got it wrong, which is not possible.

Yes, we agree that Sacramental Baptism DOES NOT EQUAL "baptism of desire" as the Church understands it, and according to Ott.

Regarding the Trent Catechism, you have jumped from the context of the Sacrament of Baptism vs "baptism of desire" to the new context of the Sacrament of Baptism vs the "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism." I am trying to tell you that "baptism of desire" is a technical term with its own meaning. "Baptism of desire" is not simply another way of phrasing "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism."

So, no neither Trent nor Ott have gotten it wrong. Those people who are mixing up contexts and definitions are getting it wrong. BoD, properly understood, has nothing to do with the discussion of "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" in the Catechism. BoD is relevant to those people who died without access to the Sacrament but who had the proper dispositions for justification at the time of death, like the Penitent Thief.

Everyone wants to make BoD out to be this attack on the Sacrament of Baptism. Properly and traditionally understood, BoD is not an attack on the Sacrament. But the Modernists have exploited the ambiguity of the concept of BoD and the fact that it sounds a lot like the phrase "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism." Modernists like to exploit things like that. They have been very successful. They have divided well-meaning Traditional Catholics on this very issue. Don't fall into their trap. Ott's precise definitions and references to Magisterial teaching is the way out of this confusion.

Stubborn · « **Reply #53 on:** August 19, 2021, 03:48:07 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 01:14:01 PM

Yes, we agree that Sacramental Baptism DOES NOT EQUAL "baptism of desire" as the Church understands it, and according to Ott.

Regarding the Trent Catechism, you have jumped from the context of the Sacrament of Baptism vs "baptism of desire" to the new context of the Sacrament of Baptism vs the "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism." I am trying to tell you that "baptism of desire" is a technical term with its own meaning. "Baptism of desire" is not simply another way of phrasing "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism."

So, no neither Trent nor Ott have gotten it wrong. Those people who are mixing up contexts and definitions are getting it wrong. BoD, properly understood, has nothing to do with the discussion of "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" in the Catechism. BoD is relevant to those people who died without access to the Sacrament but who had the proper dispositions for justification at the time of death, like the Penitent Thief.

Everyone wants to make BoD out to be this attack on the Sacrament of Baptism. Properly and traditionally understood, BoD is not an attack on the Sacrament. But the Modernists have exploited the ambiguity of the concept of BoD and the fact that it sounds a lot like the phrase "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism." Modernists like to exploit things like that. They have been very successful. They have divided well-meaning Traditional Catholics on this very issue. Don't fall into their trap. Ott's precise definitions and references to Magisterial teaching is the way out of this confusion.

Ok, you said that: "baptism of desire" is a technical term with its own meaning. "Baptism of desire" is not simply another way of phrasing "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism."

You also said that neither Trent nor Ott have gotten it wrong, I disagree with this assessment since Trent, by saying that the desire for the sacrament of baptism is ineffectual, admits that there is no other type of desire, nor any other type of sacrament of baptism.

Ott, in saying that Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis, is saying that it's efficacy is derived from the sacrament, without the sacrament, as if in some way a BOD is in and of itself an actual sacrament, albeit lesser than the sacrament of baptism. I am sure that I am not understanding this correctly since to say such a thing is to speak heresy, so where am I mistaken?

From the CE:
ex opere operantis i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient.

Angelus · « **Reply #54 on:** August 19, 2021, 04:35:45 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 19, 2021, 03:48:07 PM

Ok, you said that: "baptism of desire" is a technical term with its own meaning. "Baptism of desire" is not simply another way of phrasing "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism."

You also said that neither Trent nor Ott have gotten it wrong, I disagree with this assessment since Trent, by saying that the desire for the sacrament of baptism is ineffectual, admits that there is no other type of desire, nor any other type of sacrament of baptism.

Ott, in saying that Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis, is saying that it's efficacy is derived from the sacrament, without the sacrament, as if in some way a BOD is in and of itself an actual sacrament, albeit lesser than the sacrament of baptism. I am sure that I am not understanding this correctly since to say such a thing is to speak heresy, so where am I mistaken?

From the CE:
ex opere operantis i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient.

You said:

Quote

...Trent, by saying that the desire for the sacrament of baptism is ineffectual, admits there is no other type of desire, no any other type of sacrament of Baptism.

If you know of it, can you please provide a quote (with the section reference) so that I can confirm that some docuмent from the Council of Trent says what you say in the short quote above? I ask this because your statement seems to use language very loosely.

First, you use the phrase "desire for the sacrament of baptism" when I have spent a few pages arguing that the Church has never phrased the concept of BoD in that way. In cuм hoc tempore, the concept of BoD is found in the second part of the phrase "the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof." As far as I know, it is not formulated as "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" anywhere else. I am arguing that the latter formulation ("the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism") is where the mistake comes in and introduces ambiguity that the Modernist deceivers exploit.

Second, nowhere have I said that I think that BoD is "ineffectual." Its effects, Ott explains, are limited when compared to the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism. Specifically, BoD does not impress an indelible character/sign on the soul as does the Sacrament of Baptism, nor is BoD "a gateway to the other Sacraments" like the Sacrament of Baptism.

Third, BoD is not a "type of Sacrament of Baptism." The Sacrament of Baptism works ex opere operato, as do all the Sacraments. BoD works ex opere operantis. BoD is "extra-sacramental" in the way it works. BoD, therefore, depends on the worthiness of the recipient, i.e., on his subjective disposition to receive grace.

A concrete example of this kind of extra-sacramental BoD is what happened with the Penitent Thief. He was a guilty, unwashed sinner moments before his death. But because of his good will and recognition of Jesus as "the Lord" who had the power to forgive him, though completely unworthy, the Penitent Thief was forgiven and guaranteed by Our Lord to be with Him in Paradise.

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** August 19, 2021, 05:15:39 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 04:35:45 PM

You said:

If you know of it, can you please provide a quote (with the section reference) so that I can confirm that some docuмent from the Council of Trent says what you say in the short quote above? I ask this because your statement seems to use language very loosely.

First, you use the phrase "desire for the sacrament of baptism" when I have spent a few pages arguing that the Church has never phrased the concept of BoD in that way. In cuм hoc tempore, the concept of BoD is found in the second part of the phrase "the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof." As far as I know, it is not formulated as "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" anywhere else. I am arguing that the latter formulation ("the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism") is where the mistake comes in and introduces ambiguity that the Modernist deceivers exploit.

I agree that you are right, it is not formulated as "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" anywhere, it is always formulated as "the desire thereof" - but they both mean the same thing because "the desire thereof" means "the desire for the sacrament of baptism."

Below is the quote from Trent that you asked about...

Quote

The Council of Trent
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.

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 04:35:45 PM

Second, nowhere have I said that I think that BoD is "ineffectual."

No you haven't, but Trent does say it, see Trent's above quote in bold.

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 04:35:45 PM

Third, BoD is not a "type of Sacrament of Baptism." The Sacrament of Baptism works ex opere operato, as do all the Sacraments. BoD works ex opere operantis. BoD is "extra-sacramental" in the way it works. BoD, therefore, depends on the worthiness of the recipient, i.e., on his subjective disposition to receive grace.

A concrete example of this kind of extra-sacramental BoD is what happened with the Penitent Thief. He was a guilty, unwashed sinner moments before his death. But because of his good will and recognition of Jesus as "the Lord" who had the power to forgive him, though completely unworthy, the Penitent Thief was forgiven and guaranteed by Our Lord to be with Him in Paradise.

From your above link for the definition of ex opere operantis: "A term mainly applied to the good dispositions with which a sacrament is received..."

The sacrament of baptism is not received at all in a BOD, it is the sacrament which is altogether missing in a BOD, therefore ex opere operantis cannot possibly apply here.

The example of the Good Thief, St. Dismas, simply does not apply to a BOD at all because the sacrament of baptism was not even instituted so could not have been a requirement at that time. As it says in my above quote from Trent, the requirement for the sacrament of baptism went into effect ever "since the promulgation of the Gospel" and not before.

Angelus · « **Reply #56 on:** August 19, 2021, 05:42:03 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 19, 2021, 05:15:39 PM

I agree that you are right, it is not formulated as "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" anywhere, it is always formulated as "the desire thereof" - but they both mean the same thing because "the desire thereof" means "the desire for the sacrament of baptism."

Below is the quote from Trent that you asked about...

No you haven't, but Trent does say it, see Trent's above quote in bold.

From your above link for the definition of ex opere operantis: "A term mainly applied to the good dispositions with which a sacrament is received..."

The sacrament of baptism is not received at all in a BOD, it is the sacrament which is altogether missing in a BOD, therefore ex opere operantis cannot possibly apply here.

The example of the Good Thief, St. Dismas, simply does not apply to a BOD at all because the sacrament of baptism was not even instituted so could not have been a requirement at that time. As it says in my above quote from Trent, the requirement for the sacrament of baptism went into effect ever "since the promulgation of the Gospel" and not before.

So the question reduces to is "the laver of regeneration" a generic formulation of the concept of baptism (which would include both extra-sacramental baptism and the Sacrament of Baptism) or is "the laver of regeneration" a specific and exclusive formulation of the Sacrament of Baptism? I am saying the former. I think you are saying the latter.

If my interpretation is correct, then "the desire thereof" can refer to either extra-sacramental baptism or the Sacrament of Baptism. If your interpretation is correct, then "the desire thereof" can only refer to the Sacrament of Baptism.

If I am correct, the understanding of the concept of BoD is equivalent to an extra-sacramental event of grace, similar to John's Baptism. If you are correct, the understanding of the concept of BoD is equivalent of the effect of the Sacrament of Baptism, which would contradict Canon 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism:

Quote

I anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and therefore reduces to some sort of metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit (John 3:5)", let him be anathema.

You see to interpret cuм hoc tempore, chapter 4 in the way you want to interpret it makes the words "or the desire thereof" meaningless and superfluous and contradictory to Canon 2. Do you understand this? That being the case. The words "or the desire thereof" must refer to something other than the Sacrament of Baptism, which Canon 2 says must involve "true and natural water."

Stubborn · « **Reply #57 on:** August 19, 2021, 06:40:19 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 05:42:03 PM

So the question reduces to is "the laver of regeneration" a generic formulation of the concept of baptism (which would include both extra-sacramental baptism and the Sacrament of Baptism) or is "the laver of regeneration" a specific and exclusive formulation of the Sacrament of Baptism? I am saying the former. I think you are saying the latter.

If my interpretation is correct, then "the desire thereof" can refer to either extra-sacramental baptism or the Sacrament of Baptism. If your interpretation is correct, then "the desire thereof" can only refer to the Sacrament of Baptism.

If I am correct, the understanding of the concept of BoD is equivalent to an extra-sacramental event of grace, similar to John's Baptism. If you are correct, the understanding of the concept of BoD is equivalent of the effect of the Sacrament of Baptism, which would contradict Canon 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism:

You see to interpret cuм hoc tempore, chapter 4 in the way you want to interpret it makes the words "or the desire thereof" meaningless and superfluous and contradictory to Canon 2. Do you understand this? That being the case. The words "or the desire thereof" must refer to something other than the Sacrament of Baptism, which Canon 2 says must involve "true and natural water."

Not sure what "extra-sacramental baptism" is, because as there is only one Lord and one faith, there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5) , on that account, the laver of regeneration can only be the sacrament of baptism.

On that note, as found in Scripture, Titus 3:5 says "Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost."
Which the Haydock commentary has this to say about that verse...

Ver. 5. Not by the works, &c. St. Paul in this verse alludes to the sacrament of baptism. This text is brought by divines to prove that baptism, like every other sacrament, produces its effect by its own power, (or, as it is termed in the schools, ex opere operato) independently of any disposition on the part of the receiver. We are saved, says the apostle, not by the works of justice, or any good works we have performed, but our salvation must be attributed solely to the mercy of our Saviour, God, manifested to us by the washing itself of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost. --- By the laver of regeneration, &c.[2] That is, baptism, by which we are born anew the adoptive children of God, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured, &c. (Witham)

Note the underlined in the commentary, we are not saved by any good works we have performed, but by God providing for us that which we need, "that is, baptism."

Angelus · « **Reply #58 on:** August 19, 2021, 09:31:17 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 19, 2021, 06:40:19 PM

Not sure what "extra-sacramental baptism" is, because as there is only one Lord and one faith, there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5) , on that account, the laver of regeneration can only be the sacrament of baptism.

On that note, as found in Scripture, Titus 3:5 says "Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost."
Which the Haydock commentary has this to say about that verse...

Ver. 5. Not by the works, &c. St. Paul in this verse alludes to the sacrament of baptism. This text is brought by divines to prove that baptism, like every other sacrament, produces its effect by its own power, (or, as it is termed in the schools, ex opere operato) independently of any disposition on the part of the receiver. We are saved, says the apostle, not by the works of justice, or any good works we have performed, but our salvation must be attributed solely to the mercy of our Saviour, God, manifested to us by the washing itself of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost. --- By the laver of regeneration, &c.[2] That is, baptism, by which we are born anew the adoptive children of God, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured, &c. (Witham)

Note the underlined in the commentary, we are not saved by any good works we have performed, but by God providing for us that which we need, "that is, baptism."

Extra-sacramental "baptism" or the extra-sacramental "laver of regeneration" is the spiritual "cleansing" that works ex opere operantis. Other Sacraments like the Sacrament of Confession and the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which all work ex opere operato, have similar extra-sacramental analogues, known as "perfect contrition" and "spiritual communion," respectively. The extra-sacramental analogues do not have the same method of operation (i.e., they work ex opere operantis) nor do they have same effect as the Sacrament that they mimic. But they do have some effect for those recipients who are properly disposed.

In my previous post, I gave you a logical reason why in the phrase "the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" that the words "laver of regeneration" cannot possibly mean ONLY the Sacrament of Baptism. I said that Canon 2 on the Doctrine on Sacrament of Baptism from the Council of Trent excludes any interpretation that there is a "Sacrament of Baptism of desire." The only Sacrament of Baptism is the one that uses proper matter (water) and form. Can you please respond to what I said? Your last post completely ignored that point.

The works that you cite, for example Scripture, gets its meaning from the interpretation given to it by the Church. So, as a Catholic, you should look to what the Church says Scripture means, unless the Church has been silent on that point. The Church has not been silent on either the Sacrament of Baptism or extra-sacramental baptism (which includes both BoD and BoB). As I have said over and over again, Ludwig Ott has provided a summary of the Church's perennial teaching on the matter.

Stubborn · « **Reply #59 on:** August 20, 2021, 05:21:02 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 09:31:17 PM

In my previous post, I gave you a logical reason why in the phrase "the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" that the words "laver of regeneration" cannot possibly mean ONLY the Sacrament of Baptism. I said that Canon 2 on the Doctrine on Sacrament of Baptism from the Council of Trent excludes any interpretation that there is a "Sacrament of Baptism of desire." The only Sacrament of Baptism is the one that uses proper matter (water) and form. Can you please respond to what I said? Your last post completely ignored that point.

The laver of regeneration means what it says no? i.e. being washed with water while the words are pronounced is "the laver."

"Of regeneration" is the transformation from sin to the state of grace (justification) via the laver - this is the sacrament of baptism, the same "one baptism" taught in Scripture, professed in the Creed and referenced in Canon 2.

Not having water or minister but wishing for both is what is meant by "or the desire thereof," which is simply the desire for the sacrament of baptism. I do not see this as being the least bit confused or in any way complicated.

Without the laver, there is no regeneration, if there was, then the phrase would say as below;

"And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
Because the word "Laver" is excluded, there is no method of regeneration, hence no regeneration at all. The laver is necessary for regeneration.

To sum it up, "The Laver of Regeneration" and "Sacrament of Baptism" of Canon 2, the Creed and Scripture are one and the same. The "Desire Thereof" is the desire for the sacrament of baptism.

Trent makes no mention of any other type or definition of baptism, nor does Trent suggest they are talking about a different type of baptism or sacrament of baptism, or anything that could lead anyone to conclude that "the desire thereof" does not mean what it says, i.e. the desire for the sacrament of baptism.

Quote from: Angelus on August 19, 2021, 09:31:17 PM

The works that you cite, for example Scripture, gets its meaning from the interpretation given to it by the Church. So, as a Catholic, you should look to what the Church says Scripture means, unless the Church has been silent on that point. The Church has not been silent on either the Sacrament of Baptism or extra-sacramental baptism (which includes both BoD and BoB). As I have said over and over again, Ludwig Ott has provided a summary of the Church's perennial teaching on the matter.

You must have missed it but go back and look, I did post the interpretation given to it by the Church, I quoted the commentary on that passage directly from the Haydock Bible wherein it says that the Laver of Regeneration *is* baptism, which is the same baptism and same interpretation of Trent. It's at the end of my last post.

And don't listen to Ott here as he is entirely wrong on this. Proof that Otts teaching on this is *not* a summary of the Church's perennial teaching on the matter, is that the things he says are altogether contrary to Trent's teaching - which, Trent's teaching truly is the Church's authoritative, perennial teaching on the matter. Forget Ott, stick with Trent and don't complicate it.

Author Topic: Limbo of Adults? (Read 8844 times)

Angelus

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Angelus

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Marion

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Stubborn

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Matthew

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Angelus

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Marion

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Angelus

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Stubborn

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Angelus

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Stubborn

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Angelus

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Stubborn

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Angelus

Re: Limbo of Adults?

Stubborn

Re: Limbo of Adults?