Happenby: “The canons of the Church make it clear that water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. The saints cannot contradict these truths no matter how hopeful their sentiments.”
Please. The saints are not infallible. Certainly not when they contradict Church teaching.
RomanTheo: What makes more sense, that two doctors of the Church and the Holy Office misunderstood Trent’s teaching concerning baptism, or that it is you who have misunderstand the canons? Every pre-Vatican II manual explains the Church’s teaching concerning baptism in similar terms, and they all teach baptism of desire and blood – not as “a piece of speculative theology that the Church has tolerated for some period of time,” as Ladislas claimed, but rather as a doctrine qualified as sententia proximate fide, as Dr. Ott taught in the earlier citation.
If it was only me that misunderstood, that would be no problem. I would be wrong. But the fact is, Trent's canons are clear and it contradicts the saints on this matter. But that isn't a disaster, its a lesson. The Council prevails, and the saints and theologians go home.
Rejection of a doctrine qualified as sententia proximate fide is not merely rash, but rather a mortal sin indirectly against the faith, as Fr. Cartechini explains in his masterful work On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them.
Agreed. However, interpreting Trent to include bod when it says otherwise amounts to anathema as the canons decleare. If bod is true, no harm done because baptism is necessary. So, no one will go to hell for defending the necessity of baptism.
Happenby: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
RomanTheo: No one denies that baptism is necessary for salvation. If you study the teaching of the Church you will find that baptism is necessary with the two-fold necessity of means (necessitas medii), and necessity of precept (necessitas prcecepti).
Nonsense. This is rhetoric, obfuscation, semantics. Baptism is necessary and the canons are quite emphatic. What harm is there in not believing in bod in reality? It does me, as a Catholic, zero good to believe it. It affects no one if I don't believe it. However, if it doesn't exist, it prevents some people from going to the lengths it takes to get people baptism since it comforts people in false hope.
Necessity of precept “signifies the type of necessity which arises exclusively from a moral obligation. It conduces to salvation not so much by a positive causal influx as the removal of obstacles to salvation. If the precept is not observed, serious sin is committed; and sin itself is an obstacle to salvation.” This precept is referred to as a relative necessity, for one is not guilty of sin (the “obstacle to salvation”), unless they are guilty of neglecting to receive baptism.
Concerning the necessity of means (necessitas medii), Wilhelm and Scannell explain it as follows in their celebrated work A Manual of Catholic Theology (1901). Be sure to notice what Conciliar decree they reference concerning baptism of desire:
“We have, in the first volume, distinguished two kinds of necessity: necessity of means (necessitas medii), and necessity of precept (necessitas prcecepti).
“(a) Baptism is a necessary means of salvation; that is to say, without baptism a person cannot be saved, even though the omission is due to no fault on any one's part. Those who are capable of receiving God's commands (that is, all grown-up persons) are bound to seek baptism, and if they neglect to do so, they commit a grievous sin.
“(b) The apparent harshness of this doctrine is mitigated when we bear in mind a further distinction recognized by the Council of Trent (sess. vi., De Justif., cap. iv.; sess. vii., De Sacr., can. 4), and thus explained by St. Thomas: "The sacrament of baptism may be wanting to a person in two ways: first, in fact and in desire (re et voto) as in the case of those who are not baptized and refuse to be baptized, which is manifestly a contempt of the sacrament, and therefore those who in this way are without baptism cannot be saved, seeing that they are neither sacramentally nor mentally (in spirit) incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone is salvation. Secondly, the sacrament may be wanting in fact but not in desire, as when a person wishes to be baptized, but is stricken by death before he can receive baptism, and such a one can, without actual baptism, be saved on account of the desire of baptism proceeding from faith working by love, by means of which God, Whose power is not restricted to visible sacraments, internally (interius) sanctifies him. Hence, Ambrose saith of Valentinian, who died while only a catechumen: ‘I have lost him whom I was about to regenerate; but he has not lost the grace which he asked for'." (ST. q. 68, a. 2).
“This "baptism of desire" (flaminis) as opposed to actual baptism (baptismus fluminis), is treated of at great length by St. Augustine. "I find," he says (De Bapt., iv. 22), "that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply the defect of baptism (id quod ex baptismo deeraf), but even faith and conversion of heart, if there be no time for celebrating the sacrament (mysteriuni) of baptism.
In re, in voto, by votum, by desire alone, by faith alone, necessity of means, necessity of precept, pius saint stories, blah blah blah ...it's all a bunch of fluminis flaminis. Baptism of desire IS NOT baptism. By definition, bod is no baptism at all. You wouldn't want to place your faith in such a thing if you were the candidate. Men need baptism for salvation. End it there. God does the rest.
To sum up, baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. The former is a relative necessity. The latter is an absolute necessity - but only as to its salvific effects, which can be had by receiving the water of baptism in fact or in desire.
Happenby: Canon II. You have to have water for baptism.
Since the canon rejects metaphors, saying that bod will save makes the person saying it, anathema. Bod, by definition, is not baptism, and it cannot save. These canons are iron clad against bod.
RomanTheo: What the canon rejects is that the word “water” (in John 3:3) be understood in a metaphorical sense, which is what the heretics of the day were guilty of doing. The canon has nothing to do with the doctrine of baptism of desire, which is a desire to receive the water of baptism.
Happenby: "And this translation (to the state of justification), since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, at least in 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.” (Council of Trent)
Changing the words to say "at least" is an addition that falsifies the entire premise of the necessity for baptism.
The "or" in Trent includes "laver of regeneration" and it includes "desire". The sacrament "laver of regeneration" is necessary, and it cannot be had without "desire for it". If one concludes that the "or" means "either/or" then that means one can have justification with laver of regeneration, by desire only, but then that means one can get justification with the "laver of regeneration", but without desire for the sacrament. And we all know that is false.
RomanTheo: On the contrary, we all know it is true. A person most certainly can be justified by the “laver of regeneration” without having the desire for the sacrament. This happens every single time an infant is baptized. If the laver of regeneration AND desire were absolutely necessary, infant baptism would be null and void.
Nope. In fact, its necessary for the person representing the child to desire the sacrament on behalf of the child.
Happenby: Further, if you can have justification with laver of regeneration, but without desire, and you can have justification with desire but without laver of regeneration, then we can have justification without either, "desire" or "laver of regeneration", courtesy of the "or". Patently false.
RomanTheo: Your leap from the conclusion that if only one of the two is necessary, it means neither are necessary, is illogical and absurd. “Or” means one of the two. It doesn’t mean neither of the two.
That's what happens when you suggest the "or" means either/or. If laver is necessary, but not desire, and desire is necessary but not laver, then either one is not necessary. If either is not necessary, neither is necessary. This takes a little thought, but its absolutely true.
Happenby: The "or" in Trent's quoted statements includes the necessity of "desire" and the necessity of the "laver of regeneration" because it says this: you cannot have justification without...” Without what? You cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof. You need both.”
RomanTheo: Again, if this were true it would mean infant baptisms are invalid, since infants receive the laver without desire.
See above. The persons representing the child take that responsibility on their behalf. But desire is necessary even if by proxy.
Now, since the Church’s universal disciplines are infallible, and since the universal practice of the Church for two thousand years has been to baptize infants, it proves that your interpretation of Trent – which is contrary to that of the Magisterium (quoted earlier) and every single theologian without exception since the time of the Council – is dead wrong.
Baptism is necessary for all men for salvation.
Topic: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire (Read 4716 times)