Author Topic: Paulists Catechism Of Trent BOD (Read 4132 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #15 on:** January 02, 2014, 04:01:11 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

No, I am reading what is written. It is clear as day, but again, as with the Council of Trent, again, you cannot read the text for what it says, rather you read it with your internal filter which for some strange reason filters out the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire whenever you read it.

Really Ambrose, stop weaseling already. If you want to show you are honest, then we can settle this with only two simple and clear questions. (I even posted the answers at the bottom of this post for you). Perhaps you'll be so bold as to state what Trent's answer is, then what your answer is.

1) Do you believe that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation?

2) Do you believe that without the sacraments or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification?

Since both questions are directly from canon IV posted below, always remember that, according to you, a BOD is infallibly defined, somewhere within these 2 simple questions.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Ambrose · « **Reply #16 on:** January 02, 2014, 10:22:55 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ladislaus
If I DO NOT SAY that non-Catholics can be saved, i.e. for taking the EENS dogmatic definitions at simple face value, now I am the heretic

That's because everything before Vatican II was hunky-dory - just get to a Latin Mass and don't bother us with theology. :wink:

This statement exposes your ignorance of the conditions that existed in the Church in the 1950's.

SJB · « **Reply #17 on:** January 02, 2014, 11:00:12 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

... and don't bother us with theology.

That's quite comical coming from you. You dismiss all theologians rather easily (not infallible, modernist, etc.) :rolleyes:

Cantarella · « **Reply #18 on:** January 02, 2014, 11:58:04 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Cantarella,

There is no conflict between the teaching of the Church, as cited in your last post, and Baptism of Desire.

There is, because in order to become a member of the Church you need to be baptized (using the proper form (words) and matter (true and natural water)). You are not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ until you do so. If someone believes that the "desire" for Baptism is sufficient and can replace water baptism is presuming two things that the Church has solemnly condemned and therefore, falling into heresy: first, that the Sacrament of Baptism, commanded by God and instituted by Christ Lord, is impossible for some to receive. and second, that the Sacrament of Baptism could be optional for some (those who die with the desire for Baptism).

No Baptism (in water) = no Church membership
no Church membership = no salvation

=> No Baptism in water = No salvation

A person that has not been baptized in water is not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, Baptism of "Desire", which does not make a person enter the Church, is clearly against the dogma of EENS.

Ambrose · « **Reply #19 on:** January 02, 2014, 12:25:14 PM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ambrose
Of course water is needed for Baptism. Baptism of Desire and Blood are not Baptism.

Quote from: Ambrose
There is no conflict between the teaching of the Church, as cited in your last post, and Baptism of Desire.

So you can be saved without Baptism?

Yes, one can be saved through Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, neither of which is the sacrament of Baptism, but both have the same effects as Baptism, with the exception of the indelible mark.

The following is taken from a well respected dogmatic theology manual which explains this point with great clarity:

(Take note that Scheeben, Wilhelm, and Scannell reference the Council of Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire, and cite the same sections used by St. Alphonsus.)

Quote

Sect. 252. --Necessity and Effects of Baptism.

I. The Council of Trent has defined that baptism is necessary for salvation (sess. vii., De Bapt., can. 5). The proof of this doctrine and the various qualifications, or rather explanations, with which it must be understood, have now to be considered.

I. The words of our Lord to Nicodemus are the plainest proof of the necessity of baptism: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John iii. 5). He commanded His Apostles to baptize all nations, and promised that those who should believe and be baptized should be saved (Matt, xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16). So St. Peter told the first converts that they must be baptized (Acts ii. 37), and all the other converts mentioned in the Acts and Epistles submitted to the same rite (supra, p. 379). Hence the early Fathers insist on its necessity. "It is prescribed that no one can obtain salvation without baptism, according to that great saying of the Lord, 'Unless a man,'" etc. (Tertull., De Bapt.. c. 12; see also St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres., lib. iii. cap. 17). We have already (supra, p. 380) quoted a passage from St. Justin, describing how the converts were received into the Church. But it was in the controversies with the Pelagians that the necessity of baptism and the reason thereof were especially insisted on: the necessity of baptism being appealed to as one of the proofs of Original Sin, or Original Sin being assigned as the reason why it was necessary. To these proofs may be added the argument adduced by St. Thomas: No one can be saved but through Christ; now, it is by baptism that we become members of Christ, and put on Christ; therefore baptism is necessary for salvation (q. 68, a. i).

2. We have, in the first volume (§45), 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'" (q. 68, a. 2). This "baptism of desire" (flaminis) as opposed to actual baptism (baptismus flaminis), 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 decrat), but even faith and conversion of heart, if there be no time for celebrating the sacrament (mysterium) of baptism."

(c) Martyrdom (baptismus sanguinis), also, in the case of those who have not been baptized, can supply the defect of the sacrament. "Whosoever, without having received the laver of regeneration, die for confessing Christ, obtain remission of their sins just as much as if they had been washed in the font of baptism. For He Who said, 'Except a man be born again,' etc., made an exception with regard to these when He said, not less universally, ' Every one therefore that shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father Who is in heaven,' and 'He that shall lose his life for Me shall find it' (Matt. x. 32, 39) " (St. Aug., De Civ. Dei, xiii. 7; cf. St. Thomas, 3, q. 66, a. 12).

A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's “Dogmatik”
Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., Volume II, Book 7, Chap. 2, sect. 252, found HERE

Stubborn · « **Reply #20 on:** January 02, 2014, 12:27:53 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
... and don't bother us with theology.

That's quite comical coming from you. You dismiss all theologians rather easily (not infallible, modernist, etc.) :rolleyes:

Yes, it is rather easy to dismiss all theologians when they contradict de fide teachings - wouldn't you agree?

Ambrose · « **Reply #21 on:** January 02, 2014, 12:51:34 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

No, I am reading what is written. It is clear as day, but again, as with the Council of Trent, again, you cannot read the text for what it says, rather you read it with your internal filter which for some strange reason filters out the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire whenever you read it.

Really Ambrose, stop weaseling already. If you want to show you are honest, then we can settle this with only two simple and clear questions. (I even posted the answers at the bottom of this post for you). Perhaps you'll be so bold as to state what Trent's answer is, then what your answer is.

1) Do you believe that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation?

2) Do you believe that without the sacraments or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification?

Since both questions are directly from canon IV posted below, always remember that, according to you, a BOD is infallibly defined, somewhere within these 2 simple questions.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

1. Regarding question #1, I will refer you to my last post on this thread to Alcuin.

2. No.

St. Alphonsus and the other theologians do not use this Canon (that you keep citing) in showing Trent as teaching Baptism of Desire. They cite the teaching as given in Session VI, Chapter IV, and explain the mechanism of Baptism of Desire by citing Session XIV, Chapter IV.

bowler · « **Reply #22 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:26:26 PM »

From Patristic scholar Fr. William Jurgens, author of the three volume set Faith of the Early Church Fathers, a compilation of quotes from the Fathers.

“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

How can anyone read these clear dogmatic decrees below and still conclude that a person can be saved who dies without being a baptized Catholic in a state of grace?

Council of Trent, Session VI Decree on Justification,
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 (John 3:5).

Chapter VII.

What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

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 no man was ever justified;

(Just in case anyone wants to refute what that quote above means, I quote below the same thing said at the Council of Florence:)

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”

bowler · « **Reply #23 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:50:04 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn
... and don't bother us with theology.

That's quite comical coming from you. You dismiss all theologians rather easily (not infallible, modernist, etc.) :rolleyes:

Yes, it is rather easy to dismiss all theologians when they contradict de fide teachings - wouldn't you agree?

The Heroin BODer chooses his teachers according to his own desires. They come up with a Frankenstein "theology" which no one Father,Doctor,or Saint has ever put together or completed.

Just One Example

1) The theologians still have not figured out how to get an unbaptized person inside the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

They still to date have not been able to get past the problem that “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church."

Here on CI till like a few months ago, the Heron BODers were using St. Robert Bellarmine "Soul of the Church" explanation to get them "inside" the Church. Since I shot that down with Mystici Corporus by Pius XII, they began using Fr. Fenton's "New & Improved Soul of the Church" (same dung different packaging). Suffice it to say that we waited 1950 years for a Fr. Fenton to "get it right"?

Today, 2013 years of Church teaching, and they still have not figured out the all important "how to get an unbaptized person inside the Church, outside of which there is no salvation". But never mind that, they think.

SJB · « **Reply #24 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:55:44 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn
... and don't bother us with theology.

That's quite comical coming from you. You dismiss all theologians rather easily (not infallible, modernist, etc.) :rolleyes:

Yes, it is rather easy to dismiss all theologians when they contradict de fide teachings - wouldn't you agree?

Except NO theologian understands this the way you do. You dismiss all theologians period.

Cantarella · « **Reply #25 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:11:35 PM »

The concept of Invincible Ignorance has been severely twisted and misinterpreted by the modern BODers out of sentimentalism and liberalism. They grant salvation to the invincible ignorant which is very odious heresy. Originally, invincible ignorance was simply another way of God to separate the reprobate from the elect. The invincible ignorant being still punishable by God, just in a different or lesser degree than those who consciously and stubbornly deny the Faith, having the gospel being presented to them. The invincible ignorant is not saved on account of original sin.

St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith. They are not saved and God does not prevent this by sending them a missionary. This is the place of invincible ignorance, simply an adequate means towards the selection of the elect and the completion of the universe.

From St. Thomas:

“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.

“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.”

I wonder who was the heretic that granted salvation for the invincible ignorant, so even members of false religions can be saved now?

SJB · « **Reply #26 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:21:14 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The concept of Invincible Ignorance has been severely twisted and misinterpreted by the modern BODers out of sentimentalism and liberalism. They grant salvation to the invincible ignorant which is very odious heresy. Originally, invincible ignorance was simply another way of God to separate the reprobate from the elect. The invincible ignorant being still punishable by God, just in a different or lesser degree than those who consciously and stubbornly deny the Faith, having the gospel being presented to them. The invincible ignorant is not saved on account of original sin.

St. Thomas himself explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own are still damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith. They are not saved and God does not prevent this by sending them a missionary. This is the place of invincible ignorance, simply an adequate means towards the selection of the elect and the completion of the universe.

From St. Thomas:

“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.

“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.”

I wonder who was the heretic that granted salvation for the invincible ignorant, so even members of false religions can be saved now?

There needs to be an object of invincible ignorance. A person isn't just "invinciby ignorant," he is invincibly ignorant of something. A man who hasn't the Faith cannot be saved, so the Faith isn't that object.

Stubborn · « **Reply #27 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:22:54 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Stubborn
... and don't bother us with theology.

That's quite comical coming from you. You dismiss all theologians rather easily (not infallible, modernist, etc.) :rolleyes:

Yes, it is rather easy to dismiss all theologians when they contradict de fide teachings - wouldn't you agree?

Except NO theologian understands this the way you do. You dismiss all theologians period.

You need to go to the BP Sanborn Thread and click the video link in the OP - go to the 56:17 minute mark and listen for the next 15 seconds or so.

Ambrose · « **Reply #28 on:** January 02, 2014, 04:14:01 PM »

Bowler wrote:

Quote

From Patristic scholar Fr. William Jurgens, author of the three volume set Faith of the Early Church Fathers, a compilation of quotes from the Fathers.

“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Did you already forget Pyrrhos' reply to you about Fr. Jurgens Nov. 24, 2013:

Pyrrhos wrote:

Quote

From the same Fr. Jurgens, "The Faith of the Early Fathers: St. Augustine to the end of the patristic age" (Vol. 3)

SOURCE

Ambrose · « **Reply #29 on:** January 02, 2014, 04:17:09 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ambrose
Cantarella,

There is no conflict between the teaching of the Church, as cited in your last post, and Baptism of Desire.

There is, because in order to become a member of the Church you need to be baptized (using the proper form (words) and matter (true and natural water)). You are not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ until you do so. If someone believes that the "desire" for Baptism is sufficient and can replace water baptism is presuming two things that the Church has solemnly condemned and therefore, falling into heresy: first, that the Sacrament of Baptism, commanded by God and instituted by Christ Lord, is impossible for some to receive. and second, that the Sacrament of Baptism could be optional for some (those who die with the desire for Baptism).

No Baptism (in water) = no Church membership
no Church membership = no salvation

=> No Baptism in water = No salvation

A person that has not been baptized in water is not a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, Baptism of "Desire", which does not make a person enter the Church, is clearly against the dogma of EENS.

Find me a source that says as you claim "no Church membership = no salvation".

When you look and look and are unable to find this, will you admit that you made this up?