Yes, the NOM is separate, but Religious Liberty is very much related.  

If the criterion for salvation is subjectivized to following one's (even erroneous) conscience, then if someone follows his (even erroneous) conscience, he saves his soul.  Everyone has a right to save his soul.  Ergo, everyone has the right to follow an (even erroneous) conscience.  So a state or society or anyone else who tries to thwart people from acting according to their conscience is actually jeopardizing their salvation.

First, presumably we're supposed to follow what's revealed.  So if what's been revealed down throughout history is that Religious Liberty is *not* an inherent human right, we have to accept that even if it doesn't "make sense" to us that its possible for people to be saved in and despite their false religions but that religious liberty isn't a human right.

Second, DH seems to teach that it is *wrong* for the State to suppress religious liberty, not merely that it is sometimes, or even always, imprudent to do so.  

Third, I think you're kinda strawmanning the Lefebvre/Cekada, Old Jesuit position, which I understand that you strongly disagree with, but it isn't saying that as long as you follow your conscience, its guaranteeing salvation.  Its just positing that it is *possible* for a soul to be saved through his belief in the truth of a rewarding/punishing God, *despite* his false religion *if* he is invincibly ignorant of the truth *and* he has perfect contrition for all serious sins he's committed.  You might disagree with that idea, but even if its true it does not therefore entail that following one's conscience always leads to salvation.  Basically I think you're ignoring the whole notion that traditionalists who disagree with you on EENS still believe that salvation is *way* harder as an annomyous Catholic living among Protestants or Muslims than it would be to, you know, just joon the Church the normal way in the first place.


Now ,if the *only* way to be damned was by violating one's own conscience, I'd agree with you, but that's not what Trads who hold Lefebvre's view believe.  Rather, they believe that there are several ways you could be damned.  Lack of invincible ignorance (even if you are not subjectively  convinced) and not joining the RCC would be one way.  Lacking perfect contrition for mortal sins would be another.

Now i will grant, some conservative NOs agree with SSPX and mainstream Sede churches on these criteria, but then I still think DH is a problem, first of all because the logic of that view doesn't lead to DH, and second, and more importantly, DH separately conflicts with Tradition.

I spoke with him about it before and I think he agrees with your point. But I believe he said the council literally said that the sacrament of baptism is/which is, the sacrament of faith. Do you agree with that? The part you are referring to comes later on. I am not qualified to speak on it, but I would appreciate it if you could contact him. But Latin isn't the only subject, there is plenty of evidence that BOD is not a dogma, it was never defined, and is just a speculation.

Oh, of course, BoD was never defined and is nothing but speculation.  So you're preaching to the choir.  I just don't believe that the Church has condemned it either.  I think I started a thread some time ago regarding the theological status of BoD.

It Trent had defined BoD, then why is it that only 7 of the 25 theologians surveyed by Fr. Cekada hold it to be de fide?  Why is it that there's no definition nor explanation anywhere of what it is and what must be believed about it?  Presumably these 7 THOUGHT Trent had defined it, which is why they thought it was de fide, but I disagree, and so do most theologians.

Of course Baptism is the Sacrament of faith, but that doesn't answer definitively the question of whether the faith can be had before the Sacrament.  Confession is the Sacrament of restoring fallen sinners to a state of justification, but that doesn't mean that someone can't be justified by Confession through perfect contrition and the resolution to go to Confession.

Oh, of course, BoD was never defined and is nothing but speculation.  So you're preaching to the choir.  I just don't believe that the Church has condemned it either.  I think I started a thread some time ago regarding the theological status of BoD.

It Trent had defined BoD, then why is it that only 7 of the 25 theologians surveyed by Fr. Cekada hold it to be de fide?  Why is it that there's no definition nor explanation anywhere of what it is and what must be believed about it?  Presumably these 7 THOUGHT Trent had defined it, which is why they thought it was de fide, but I disagree, and so do most theologians.

Of course Baptism is the Sacrament of faith, but that doesn't answer definitively the question of whether the faith can be had before the Sacrament.  Confession is the Sacrament of restoring fallen sinners to a state of justification, but that doesn't mean that someone can't be justified by Confession through perfect contrition and the resolution to go to Confession.

Sorry, I posted it wrong.

I know I am repeating myself  (sorry),  but I would really like you to speak to this guy. I believe he mentioned that Trent defined the exception for penance with perfect contrition, but it never did for baptism. So if they were equal in that exception it needed to be also defined for baptism, as for penance. But as I say, I am not qualified in the subject and don't want to speak for anyone else.

1
But this particular line of Trent admits of two meanings. It's ambiguous, in and of itself.  If someone says this teaches BOD, they're putting an interpretation on the text. Likewise, if someone claims this sentence excludes BOD, they're putting an interpretation on the text. You saying the "two variables" must be connected is an effect of such an imposition. You're requiring that any "analogy" have a form in which both of the "two variables" are required. You reject the "driving or walking" analogy because it doesn't fit what you appear to want this sentence to say. And yes, of course "driving or walking" do not relate to each other in precisely and exactly the same way that "laver or desire" relate to each other, but that wasn't the point of the analogy. (There's a saying that analogies limp except on the point of the comparison.)

2
So, OK, we could look at analogies that compare grammatically to
"Justification cannot be had without the laver or the desire".
Note that the subject is justification - a grace, not a sacrament, and not sacramental character.
What we would have is a sentence like
"The graces of a sacrament cannot be had without the sacrament or the desire"
and this sentence would supposedly mean that both the sacrament and the desire are required.

3
Penance: Can there be no forgiveness without the sacrament of penance in re? No perfect contrition?
.
4
Confirmation: Do the gifts of the holy ghost not exist in the soul without the sacrament of confirmation?
.
5
Communion: Are the fruits of communion possible through "spiritual communion" at least in some limited way?
.6

Marriage: Since the couple are the ministers, one could view  a desire for the sacrament, with appropriate external conditions, as the sacrament itself. So the sacrament and the desire are arguably the same.
.
7
Last rites: not sure but should be similar to penance.
.
8
Holy orders. Obviously, desire does not confer the character or the power to offer mass, but I don't see why other graces could not flow based on a "desire" without reception of the sacrament.
.
9
Your interpretation for baptism wouldn't fit any other sacrament. I can see potential reasons baptism could be entirely different, but it still means analogies with other sacraments do not appear to support your view.

10
Yes, but this discussion is about baptism. If both the sacrament in re, AND the votum, are required for justification, then something should be said about infant baptisms. Do infants express a desire for the sacrament?

And if you say the votum can be in the sponsors, does that mean a third party impacts validity?

Greetings all,
I hope you and yours are well.
Please allow that I inserted numbers in Mr Stanley's text to help me keep track.
1
I do admit to reading this chapter in Trent from the perspective of one who knows BOD to be false. How could I do it otherwise? Why do you find fault there? You claim "But this particular line of Trent admits of two meanings. It's ambiguous, in and of itself." but this can only be accomplished if you ignore half the sentence (unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, etc) and that I will not allow. A sentence is a complete thought, to dissect it to wring out a different meaning is dishonest. Leave its immediate scriptural support intact and there is the and that you and Xavier Sem are demanding. Also, analogies are imperfect and maybe the argument is too precise or the arguers (is that a word?) are too knit-picky.

2 Justification has three effects, remission of sin, sanctifying grace, and and the character but that is not relevant here.
You falsely equate the laver of regeneration with the sacrament, the two are not synonymous. Laver of regeneration is something less than the sacrament, then Trent articulates exactly what is missing, the will or vow to be baptized.

3 The matter for penance [contrition (or attrition), confession, and penance) is present when the penitent vows to go to confession, so we still see matter and intent are necessary, even with perfect contrition.

4 "If anyone saith, that confirmation is of those who are baptized is an idle ceremony, ...let him be anathema."

5 The reception of Holy Communion is not in question, the confection of the sacrament is and form, matter, and intent are all required.

6 Agreed

7 I disagree as the matter is external to the recipient of the sacrament. Also this one is quite different from Baptism and won't aid in our discussion.

8 What other graces? If they have nothing to do with a sacerdotal mission or vocation, it is irrelevant here.

9 You sound like one who doesn't really think the sacraments are essential. Please make an act of faith and reread your work.

10 Trent, Sixth session, chapter IV is "A description of the Justification of the impious,...etc" and as such applies not to infants.

Good night,
God bless

When Trent is understood according to the first principle, namely, the sacraments being necessary unto salvation, as it says it the first sentence, then it will be understood that without them, or without the desire for them, the idea that men will obtain from God justification is condemned.

The idea of justification without the sacrament is condemned as the prot doctrine of faith alone -  obtaining justification through faith alone, same goes for the desire for them. Either or both, however you understand it, Trent condemns them both.  

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.

The first thing Trent teaches is the sacraments are necessary unto salvation. After Trent affirms this truth, Trent then immediately condemns with anathema the prot doctrine of sola fide, justification through faith alone.

Instead of zeroing in on the word "desire", try zooming in on what it is that Trent is condemning, do that and you will understand what this canon, as well as Trent's decree on justification are both teaching....."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..."

Hey, Stubborn.  Of course one can't be justified with faith alone.  Charity is also required.  But even with faith and charity, it is in fact heretical to say that one can be saved with these WITHOUT ALSO the Sacrament of Baptism.  That's not the issue.  Really, the question is whether it suffices to receive the Sacrament in voto in order to be justified.  St. Robert Bellarmine was very careful to say that people who have "BoD" receive Baptism in voto and not without the Sacrament.

Same thing holds of Confession.  Initially the preparatory text read that perfect contrition sufficed for re-justification.  But the Pope himself intervened to add that there must be at least also a votum to go to Confession, because there can be no re-justification either without the Sacrament of Confession.  That's actually a very common error, where people claim that perfect contrition alone suffices.  It does NOT.  There must also be at least the votum for Confession, the intention and resolution to go to Confession.  BTW, Xavier has articulated this error a couple times, claiming that perfect contrition and charity suffices for justification in BoD ... without his even mentioning the Sacrament of Baptism.  IF there is such a thing as BoD, which I do not believe in, then the same rule would apply.  No intention or firm resolution to be baptized, no justification.  That's why this nonsense I keep hearing parroted about how Prots can be justified by perfect contrition even though they explicitly REJECT the Sacrament of Confession and have an anti-votum to receive it.  Similarly, how can an infidel have a firm resolution to receive Baptism or to got to Confession?  They can't.  Which is why they watered votum down to mean some vague longing or desire.

Really, the question is whether it suffices to receive the Sacrament in voto in order to be justified.  St. Robert Bellarmine was very careful to say that people who have "BoD" receive Baptism in voto and not without the Sacrament.

I cannot see any question in Trent's cannon or in Trent's decree, both state that without the sacrament, there is no justification. Per the canon, to say there is justification "without the sacrament or the desire thereof", is to say man obtains justification by faith alone, which is anathema.

Per the decree on justification, justification is not effected "without the the sacrament, or the desire thereof". So per Trent, both teachings mean no sacrament = no justification.

This is in harmony with the other canons decreeing the sacrament is not optional, water is the matter and etc., It also agrees with the other teachings within Trent as regards faith alone.

 

Same thing holds of Confession.  Initially the preparatory text read that perfect contrition sufficed for re-justification.  But the Pope himself intervened to add that there must be at least also a votum to go to Confession, because there can be no re-justification either without the Sacrament of Confession.  That's actually a very common error, where people claim that perfect contrition alone suffices.  It does NOT.  There must also be at least the votum for Confession, the intention and resolution to go to Confession.  BTW, Xavier has articulated this error a couple times, claiming that perfect contrition and charity suffices for justification in BoD ... without his even mentioning the Sacrament of Baptism.  IF there is such a thing as BoD, which I do not believe in, then the same rule would apply.  No intention or firm resolution to be baptized, no justification.  That's why this nonsense I keep hearing parroted about how Prots can be justified by perfect contrition even though they explicitly REJECT the Sacrament of Confession and have an anti-votum to receive it.  Similarly, how can an infidel have a firm resolution to receive Baptism or to got to Confession?  They can't.  Which is why they watered votum down to mean some vague longing or desire.

Trent's catechism does not include the sacrament of penance as being necessary, only that without it "very few indeed" can achieve the degree of contrition necessary for sins to be forgiven.

Trent's Catechism:

Necessity Of Confession

Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so
vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition
which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It,
therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common
salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the
kingdom of heaven.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by
all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he
bring not with him that contrition which may be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and
remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those
most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth
which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from
sin.

Yes, Stubborn keeps saying a BOD is faith alone, but we know from Catholic sources that the opposite is the case. Baptism of Desire is "faith that works by charity", as St. Thomas and Fr. Haydock say. In this Charity or Contrition itself, because it contains the universal will to do all that God requires (in the same way as Perfect Contrition, in itself, contains the implicit desire at least to go to Confession, even if not explicitly formulated. Thus, someone who loves Jesus Christ, looking at a Crucifix, weeping on seeing Him Crucified, could have Perfect Contrition before Confession, if already Baptized), is contained the Desire or Voto of Baptism, and after Baptism, Penance.

Above, Ladislaus said: "Initially the preparatory text read that perfect contrition sufficed for re-justification.  But the Pope himself intervened to add that there must be at least also a votum to go to Confession, because there can be no re-justification either without the Sacrament of Confession." But if you look closer at Trent, Ladislaus, this is what it says: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein." (Sess. XIV, Cap. IV) In other words, that contrition or perfect charity does reconcile man to God before the actual reception of the Sacrament, but the cause of that reconciliation is the Voto of Penance which is included therein. This is the same explanation given by the Doctors, the Catechisms, the CE etc and that I briefly summarized above.

Despite how St. Thomas phrased it, after Trent one cannot stated that justification is even just a combination of faith + charity.  It also must include the resolution to receive Baptism.  To reiterate what I said, the Pope clearly asserted that perfection contrition alone does not suffice.  So any definition of BoD that doesn't include the resolution to receive Baptism undermines the necessity of Baptism.  This implicit desire nonsense must be rejected as favoring heresy, leading to the quasi-Pelagian notion that people become justified ex opere operantis.

In your estimation, can a Protestant who openly rejects the need for the Sacrament of Confession be justified after mortal sin by "perfect contrition"?