Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2021, 11:53:08 AM
-
If you believe in Baptism of Desire, please don't vote, since that'll skew the results. Your "Yes" answer here is taken for granted.
I want to see the range of opinion among those who reject Baptism of Desire.
Then perhaps we can have a debate.
I believe in pre-Baptismal justification. If you do not, please explain why.
-
I do not see how justification can possibly be obtained without the sacrament itself. So my answer to the poll is no.
I am basing my opinion on the literal reading of Trent:
"This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."
If justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, and also cannot be effected without the desire for the sacrament, then all we can do is repeat Trent and say without the sacrament there can be no justification.
Because there can be no justification without the sacrament, whatever other means there could have been to achieve justification, including the desire thereof, it simply is missing an essential ingredient and on that account cannot be achieved without the actual sacrament.
-
If justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, and also cannot be effected without the desire for the sacrament, then all we can do is repeat Trent and say without the sacrament there can be no justification.
First, whatever grace may happen through "desire of the sacrament" is obviously in reference to the sacrament. It would not be "without the sacrament" as if something completely unrelated to the sacrament.
Second, the "or" clause does not necessarily make both parts of the clause required. Grammatically, one can say "Going to the store cannot be effected without driving or walking" without saying you need to both drive AND walk to get to the store.
-
First, whatever grace may happen through "desire of the sacrament" is obviously in reference to the sacrament. It would not be "without the sacrament" as if something completely unrelated to the sacrament.
Second, the "or" clause does not necessarily make both parts of the clause required. Grammatically, one can say "Going to the store cannot be effected without driving or walking" without saying you need to both drive AND walk to get to the store.
Either way, justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. Which is to say that even if you have met every other requirement including the desire thereof, without the sacrament, justification cannot be effected. That is what Trent said...
[justification] since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or..."
-
Either way, justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. Which is to say that even if you have met every other requirement including the desire thereof, without the sacrament, justification cannot be effected. That is what Trent said...
[justification] since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or..."
"Going to the store cannot be effected without driving or walking". Does that mean you must BOTH drive AND walk to get to the store?
-
"Going to the store cannot be effected without driving or walking". Does that mean you must BOTH drive AND walk to get to the store?
You are using the wrong analogy. It should read:
"Going to the store cannot be effected without traveling or desiring to travel".
If you do not travel, you will not get to the store no matter how badly you desire to travel there.
-
If Trent would have said: "This translation, since the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected without the desire for the sacrament, or the actual sacrament..." then without question the desire alone would then be what is absolutely necessary to obtain justification whether or not one ever received the sacrament. Apparently, this is what BODers see when they read Trent, which is probably why they claim Trent teaches a BOD.
I am more than willing to be corrected.
-
You are using the wrong analogy. It should read:
"Going to the store cannot be effected without traveling or desiring to travel".
If you do not travel, you will not get to the store no matter how badly you desire to travel there.
See, you've built YOUR interpretation into the statement. Try to look at it objectively, from the grammar alone.
"X cannot be effected without A or B".
Does that necessarily mean that BOTH A and B are required?
As has been demonstrated, grammatically, the answer is NO, not necessarily.
-
The majority of the Church is made of simple laity. We weren’t meant to be theologians so I think that Fr Feeney’s arguments about Justification only complicates the BOD issue further, when all we really need to believe is the absolute necessity of the Sacrament itself. So I voted No.
Being a hotly contested issue here on Cathinfo for so long, I’ve read threads and threads of arguments from all sides, and walked away no more enlightened on the subject. I only see confusion.
I simply rest in the words of Christ from Scripture, and in One Baptism from the Creed, and not much further.
-
See, you've built YOUR interpretation into the statement. Try to look at it objectively, from the grammar alone.
"X cannot be effected without A or B".
Does that necessarily mean that BOTH A and B are required?
As has been demonstrated, grammatically, the answer is NO, not necessarily.
I am reading Trent as it is written - to the letter, I am not interpreting it at all, not even one iota.
Trent is talking about two separate and totally different events. One event is the reception of the sacrament i.e. the laver of regeneration, the other event separate from the other, is the desire for the sacrament i.e. the desire thereof. These are two completely different events, to completely different things.
Trent literally says that if either of these events are missing, justification cannot be effected. As such, no sacrament = no justification. One can desire it all day long, but justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, that is what Trent says, literally.
As Trent decrees (literally) - justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.
-
Yes, of course, the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means for salvation.
But theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine held that the Sacrament was necessary at least in voto.
Now, modern BoDers mostly hold that the Sacrament is not absolutely necessary by a necessity of means for salvation, but effectively reduce it to necessary by necessity of precept. And I have excoriated them for that. It is in fact heretical. Others basically have a Pelagian view where they somehow ... in muddled thoughts ... imply that people can merit salvation or somehow deserve salvation.
To make it scholastic, one of these theologians might argue according to this distinction:
Yes, the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.
1) that it is absolutely necessary for salvation saltem in voto, concedo
2) that it is absolutely necessary for salvation in re, nego
Now, I do not agree with this distinction and hold that it is necessary for salvation in re, but I cannot condemn it as a heretical rejection of Trent, not when it was held by someone like St. Robert Bellarmine.
-
I am reading Trent as it is written - to the letter, I am not interpreting it at all, not even one iota.
"X cannot be effected without A or B".
As has been shown, the text alone DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE both A and B.
You are most certainly imposing your interpretation on the text.
-
See, you've built YOUR interpretation into the statement. Try to look at it objectively, from the grammar alone.
"X cannot be effected without A or B".
Does that necessarily mean that BOTH A and B are required?
As has been demonstrated, grammatically, the answer is NO, not necessarily.
I do believe that the far MORE likely translation is in fact the meaning of BOTH, rather than EITHER. Now, St. Robert Bellarmine seems to have read it as an EITHER. I have reasons for disagreeing with that.
But even APART from that issue, the question here is the WITHOUT part. If someone were justified by Baptism through the desire for it, are they being justified "WITHOUT" Baptism? Does "WITHOUT" Baptism necessarily translate to "WITHOUT THE ACTUAL RECEPTION OF" Baptism?
With regard to Confession, the Pope insisted that sinners cannot be restored to justification WITHOUT the Sacrament of Confession, but by that he still allowed for the Sacrament to operate THROUGH the desire to bring justification.
In other words, a justification that took place through the votum still would be happening because of the Sacrament, and therefore in no way without it or somehow independent of it.
-
I hold that the "CANNOT WITHOUT" passage, while it does not prove Baptism of Desire, it does not rule it out either.
-
I do believe that the far MORE likely translation is in fact the meaning of BOTH, rather than EITHER. Now, St. Robert Bellarmine seems to have read it as an EITHER. I have reasons for disagreeing with that.
And that's fine. That's debating interpretation.
In other words, a justification that took place through the votum still would be happening because of the Sacrament, and therefore in no way without it or somehow independent of it.
Exactly.
-
The majority of the Church is made of simple laity. We weren’t meant to be theologians so I think that Fr Feeney’s arguments about Justification only complicates the BOD issue further, when all we really need to believe is the absolute necessity of the Sacrament itself. So I voted No.
Being a hotly contested issue here on Cathinfo for so long, I’ve read threads and threads of arguments from all sides, and walked away no more enlightened on the subject. I only see confusion.
I simply rest in the words of Christ from Scripture, and in One Baptism from the Creed, and not much further.
This sums it up for me too Carissima. So I also vote 'No"
The following posts prove your point. I thought Ladislaus called for a Yes or No vote and giving our reasons full stop. No debate.
-
So I've explained why I don't believe Trent is ruling it out. Merely saying that justification cannot happen without the Sacrament is not necessarily saying that it cannot happen without ACTUAL RECEPTION of the Sacrament. Trent taught the same thing about Confession, that return to justification cannot happen without it, but this does not mean its actual reception is always required, but that it's required saltem voto.
Now I'll explain why I believe that there can be pre-Baptismal justification. St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist, and all the OT just were clearly in a state of justification, yet justification was not enough for them to be able to enter heaven. Yes, I know that these died before the institution of the Sacrament, so it's not proof, but I speculate that it's highly likely that people can continue to be justified (but not ultimately saved, i.e. enter the Beatific Vision) before actually receiving the Sacrament.
I hold that the Sacramental character of Baptism is absolutely an ontological requirement for the Beatific Vision, but that justification can happen outside of it ... in exactly the same way as happened for St. Joseph or St. John the Baptist.
Both of these points are admittedly speculative Ladislausian soteriology, but I personally find them highly probable.
-
Justification is not the same as salvation. The former can be lost and the latter is eternal. Too often these are confused, resulting in the a notion perilously close to the Lutheran notion of once righteous, forever righteous. Justification could happen prior to baptism, but none will persevere in such state until death without the waters of baptism. And no one, under the New Law, will enter into beatitude after death without the ontological effects of water baptism.
-
So I've explained why I don't believe Trent is ruling it out. Merely saying that justification cannot happen without the Sacrament is not necessarily saying that it cannot happen without ACTUAL RECEPTION of the Sacrament. Trent taught the same thing about Confession, that return to justification cannot happen without it, but this does not mean its actual reception is always required, but that it's required saltem voto.
Now I'll explain why I believe that there can be pre-Baptismal justification. St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist, and all the OT just were clearly in a state of justification, yet justification was not enough for them to be able to enter heaven. Yes, I know that these died before the institution of the Sacrament, so it's not proof, but I speculate that it's highly likely that people can continue to be justified (but not ultimately saved, i.e. enter the Beatific Vision) before actually receiving the Sacrament.
I hold that the Sacramental character of Baptism is absolutely an ontological requirement for the Beatific Vision, but that justification can happen outside of it ... in exactly the same way as happened for St. Joseph or St. John the Baptist.
Both of these points are admittedly speculative Ladislausian soteriology, but I personally find them highly probable.
Yes, I agree that the OT saints died justified, but did not the rules change since the promulgation of the Gospel? Although the Church, far as I know, has never said explicitly if justification is possible without, or prior to receiving the sacraments, only that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
With this in mind, one has to ask themself, what good would it do to live in the state of justification, but die without ever having received the sacrament? Less punishment in hell? That makes no sense at all.
Trent does *not* that say that justification *is* effected with the desire, rather, Trent says justification cannot be effected without it. Which means the idea that one can be justified via the desire is pure speculation and nothing more - no?
Trent does not even say justification *is* effected with the sacrament, only that justification cannot be effected without it and that since the promulgation of the Gospel, the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
-
Trent isn't the only source of dogma concerning justification. You have Pope Leo the Great teaching this:
Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.
- Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD.
Here is Br Peter Dimond on the significance of this dogmatic teaching of Pope Leo:
Now, in the section of Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter quoted above, he is dealing with Sanctification by the Spirit. “Sanctification by the Spirit” is the term for Justification from the state of sin. Justification is the state of grace. No one can get to heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit [Justification], as everyone professing to be Catholic admits. Pope St. Leo affirms, on the authority of the great apostles Sts. Peter and John, that this Sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s Blood. It is only by receiving the Blood of Redemption, he proves, that one can be changed from the state of Adam (original sin) to the state of grace (justification/sanctification). It is only by this Blood that Sanctification by the Spirit works. This dogma was also defined by the Council of Trent.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: “If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mєdιαtor, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema.”[cclxv]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated.”[cclxvi]
It is a divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin and sanctified without the application of the Blood of Redemption to him. Of this no Catholic can doubt.
Baptism of desire/blood advocates – and this would also include the St. Benedict Center, since they also believe in justification by desire – argue that the Blood of Redemption, which effects the Sanctification by the Spirit, is applied to the soul by the desire for baptism or by his martyrdom, without water baptism. Remember that: baptism of desire/blood advocates argue that the Blood of Redemption, which effects Sanctification by the Spirit, is applied to the soul without water baptism. But this is exactly the opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines dogmatically!
...
Pope St. Leo defines that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism! Thus, there can be no Justification by the Spirit and the Blood without the Sacrament of Baptism.
This infallibly excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and the Blood without water is possible.
In light of this dogmatic letter, as well as the other facts already brought forward, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held; for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification.
And lest someone tries to find fault with this infallible definition by arguing that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception to it, it should be recognized that Pope St. Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from the state of sin.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7)…”
The Blessed Virgin Mary had no sin. She was conceived already in a state of perfect sanctification. Since Pope Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from sin, his definition does not apply in any way to her.
Therefore, there can be no Justification of a sinner without water baptism (de fide). There can be no application to a sinner of Christ’s Redemptive Blood without water baptism (de fide). There can be no salvation without water baptism (de fide).
To further prove the point that this dogmatic pronouncement specifically eliminates the entire theory of baptism of desire, notice how St. Thomas Aquinas (in teaching baptism of desire) says exactly the opposite of what Pope St. Leo the Great defined.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “…a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification…”
St. Thomas says that baptism of desire gives one sanctification without the water of Baptism. Pope St. Leo the Great says dogmatically and infallibly that one cannot have sanctification without the water of baptism! A Catholic must accept Pope St. Leo the Great’s teaching.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[cclxviii]
The significance of Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement is extraordinary. It naturally crushes any idea of salvation for the supposedly “invincibly ignorant.” These souls cannot be sanctified and cleansed by the Blood of Christ without receiving the saving waters of baptism, which God will bring to all of good will.
The dogma that the Blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the Sacrament of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent; however, the definition is not as specific as Pope Leo’s. The difference is that, whereas Trent’s definition on the Blood of Christ sets forth the principle that the Blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the Sacrament of Baptism, Pope Leo’s definition confirms that this means that the Blood of Christ can only be applied to a sinner by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra: “If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mєdιαtor, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema.”[cclxix]
Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement also radically confirms the Church’s consistent understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 in their absolutely literal sense: Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “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.”[cclxx]
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”[cclxxi]
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “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’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”[cclxxii]
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[cclxxiii]
One can see the harmony of Pope St. Leo the Great’s dogmatic pronouncement with all of these others: there is no salvation without water and the Spirit because the Blood of Christ – without which no one is justified – is itself inseparable from the water and the Spirit.
Those who comprehend this pronouncement from Pope St. Leo must reject any belief in the theories of baptism of desire and blood. They must admit that the theologians who believed in baptism of desire and blood were mistaken. They must cease believing and teaching that Sanctification by the Spirit comes without the water of baptism. Those who refuse to do this are obstinately contradicting the teaching of the Church. To obstinately contradict the teaching of the Church is to fall into heresy. To fall into heresy without repentance is to lose one’s salvation.
Some may wonder why some saints and theologians taught baptism of desire and blood even after the time of Pope Leo’s pronouncement. The answer is simple: They were unaware of Pope Leo’s definitive pronouncement in this regard; they were erring in good faith; they were fallible human beings; they were not aware that their position was contrary to this infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
But once one recognizes that this position on baptism of desire and blood is contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church – as a careful consideration of Pope Leo’s pronouncement proves – one must change his position if he wants to remain Catholic and save his soul. St. Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo and confirmed for us that the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of redemption cannot be separated from their link with water baptism, so we must align our position with this or else we don’t have the faith of Peter.
-
Trent isn't the only source of dogma concerning justification. You have Pope Leo the Great teaching this:
- Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD.
Here is Br Peter Dimond on the significance of this dogmatic teaching of Pope Leo:
[...] Therefore, there can be no Justification of a sinner without water baptism (de fide). There can be no application to a sinner of Christ’s Redemptive Blood without water baptism (de fide). There can be no salvation without water baptism (de fide)...
Thanks for posting this as Trent and Pope St. Leo the Great wonderfully spell it out.
Because there can be no Justification of a sinner without water baptism, then this applies also even to the sincere catechumen.
-
Yes, I agree that the OT saints died justified, but did not the rules change since the promulgation of the Gospel? Although the Church, far as I know, has never said explicitly if justification is possible without, or prior to receiving the sacraments, only that the sacraments are necessary for salvation.
Yes, the rules changed, so what I offer is merely speculative. I believe that the ontology of salvation remains consistent, and that's the foundation for my speculation.
There was something that these OT saints were lacking ontologically that prevented them from the Beatific Vision. I hold that what was lacking was the supernatural faculty to see God as He is, something which human beings cannot do by their own nature. I hold that the character of Baptism is in fact that supernatural faculty, where we not only see God as He is, as Three Persons in One God, but we are also recognized by the Father as adopted son ... and so are in effect adopted into the Holy Trinity. Just as the character of the priesthood makes a priest fully recognizable as the persona Christi, with the Baptismal character allowing God to recognize us as His sons.
So, with the OT just, some of the Church Fathers actually held that they were temporarily raised from the dead and baptized so they could enter the beatific vision and heaven. That's what those incidents reported by Sacred Scripture of the dead coming out of their tombs was about. This was not just to create a spectacle.
-
Trent isn't the only source of dogma concerning justification. You have Pope Leo the Great teaching this:
...
Sure, but the argument from BoD advocates is that there is a LINK to Baptism, through the desire for it. As much as most modern BoDers fail to articulate this, there can be no votum for Baptism without .... Baptism. This votum derives any efficacy that it might have from the Sacrament itself, and the Sacrament is and must be (to void heresy) considered the instrumental cause of the justification, simply operating through the votum. Of course, there's this nonsense out there that people could have a votum to be baptized without every having heard or or known about Baptism. How can you "will" (aka "desire") something that you don't know.
-
Sure, but the argument from BoD advocates is that there is a LINK to Baptism, through the desire for it. As much as most modern BoDers fail to articulate this, there can be no votum for Baptism without .... Baptism. This votum derives any efficacy that it might have from the Sacrament itself, and the Sacrament is and must be (to void heresy) considered the instrumental cause of the justification, simply operating through the votum. Of course, there's this nonsense out there that people could have a votum to be baptized without every having heard or or known about Baptism. How can you "will" (aka "desire") something that you don't know.
St. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…
“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”
Or how about food? Shouldn't you be satisfied with the desire of food rather than attaining the actual food? If you desire it, you already have it. Why pay for it? Or money? Desire the money, you will have it. But everyone admits that BOD does NOT imprint the baptismal character. So in reality, it is being admitted that the desire for baptism doesn't produce the effects of baptism and therefore one has through BOD not even a link to the sacrament of baptism. Does anyone seriously believe that the desire of money is linked to the reception of money in such a way that one can enjoy the benefits of money without actually receiving it?
-
If you were a sincere person who assented to all the doctrines of the Catholic Church and had perfect contrition for your sins and had an intense desire to be baptised, would God merely give you justification? Or would He grant you the grace of baptism along with all the effects of baptism including incorporation into the Body of Christ? "Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you." [Matthew 7:7]
God didn't tell us "Seek and you shall be given a substitute".
-
Here's a hypothetical for you all:
My mother tells me she would like to be baptized (and no one else will do it). I live almost 6 hours away. She dies before I get to her. Saved?
-
The only link BOD has to baptism is nominal. It should not even be called BOD. It should by called justification by desire alone.
-
Here's a hypothetical for you all:
My mother tells me she would like to be baptized (and no one else will do it). I live almost 6 hours away. She dies before I get to her. Saved?
You don't need to baptize her. Anyone, even a non-Catholic can pour water on the forehead and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)." You could call her non-Catholic neighbor and have them do it. You could even arrange to be on the phone when it is done so that you can be assured that the form was correct.
-
You don't need to baptize her. Anyone, even a non-Catholic can pour water on the forehead and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit)." You could call her non-Catholic neighbor and have them do it. You could even arrange to be on the phone when it is done so that you can be assured that the form was correct.
I already stated in the hypothetical that no one will baptize her. Take that to include I can't get ahold of anyone or those closest to her refuse to do it. I want to address a hypothetical that is certainly possible in my situation.
She explicitly states her wish to be baptized but dies before receiving it. Is she saved? Anyone?
-
Here's a hypothetical for you all:
My mother tells me she would like to be baptized (and no one else will do it). I live almost 6 hours away. She dies before I get to her. Saved?
Understood it's only Hypothetical, but she first needs to make a profession of faith 2V, either you or get someone else to walk her through the Apostles Creed.
It is only with faith that we know that there is no one about to die sincerely desiring baptism whom God cannot secure Baptism for. If one is going to do it, almighty God *will* give one the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it, and He will arrange this with the very same Providence with which He arranged for you to be baptized.
-
I already stated in the hypothetical that no one will baptize her. Take that to include I can't get ahold of anyone or those closest to her refuse to do it. I want to address a hypothetical that is certainly possible in my situation.
She explicitly states her wish to be baptized but dies before receiving it. Is she saved? Anyone?
It is dogma that the sacrament is necessary for salvation, which means answering according to the Church, the answer would be no.
It is as Fr. Wathen puts it - "There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children". If she sincerely desires it, she will receive it - period. "Ask and you shall receive" is God's promise to us.
"For every one that asketh, receiveth" - the Haydock says of this verse:
Whatever we ask necessary to salvation with humility, fervour, perseverance, and other due circuмstances, we may be assured God will grant when it is best for us. If we do not obtain what we pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment.
-
Isn't the whole motivation behind BOD the horror of realizing that most people (assuming even that the Novus Ordo sect is on the path to salvation, which it is not) are damned? If we count everyone who thinks they are Catholic as being saved, that means at least 85% (1 billion nominal Catholics / 7 billion total population = less than 15%). But not all nominal Catholics are saved (Joe Biden? Was the sodomite "Cardinal" Bernardin saved?). How many Conciliarists openly deny dogmas of the Faith? They are legion. If we count only traditionalists as being saved (along with some incredibly ignorant but good-hearted conciliarists) we are talking somewhere in the 1 to 2% range. But not even all traditionalists are saved. Don't we all know at least a few traditionalists who are constantly committing mortal sins (especially of the flesh)? And how many of them openly deny at least some of the dogmas of the Faith? I'm thinking especially of EENS. BOD is hardly the starting point of these controversies. When it comes right down to it, most traditionalists are unwilling to give assent to an unqualified declaration of EENS. But we are not bound by anything other than the literal words of the doctrine. Most trads will only give assent to it if they can add a qualifier on to it which nullifies the literal meaning of the dogma.
-
I already stated in the hypothetical that no one will baptize her. Take that to include I can't get ahold of anyone or those closest to her refuse to do it. I want to address a hypothetical that is certainly possible in my situation.
She explicitly states her wish to be baptized but dies before receiving it. Is she saved? Anyone?
Call the local police department and ask to speak to a Catholic officer. Have that officer do a welfare check and then baptize her. She will not be saved unless she is baptized with water.
-
Stubborn is right. If someone really wants to be baptized no one will be able to stop God from doing it. But if someone expresses a desire to be baptized and we don't do everything in our power to make it happen, we will be sorry.
-
Isn't the whole motivation behind BOD the horror of realizing that most people (assuming even that the Novus Ordo sect is on the path to salvation, which it is not) are damned?
Yes, indeed this seems to be the case--BOD is a theology drawn from fallen human sentiment, not reason applied to public revelation.
-
I voted no because:
The term Justification as used in Trent has three inseparable fruits; remission of sin, sanctifying grace, and renewal (the character). This cannot be be had without the sacrament of baptism.
I believe justification with a small j means something a bit different. A person can be justified or released from eternal punishments due to personal (actual) sin. Contrition for sin with the will to confess and atone seems the same to me as the Old Testament saints who were justified but obviously not sanctified. I also believe the ontology (I think economy is a better word here) of Salvation is consistent, our poor use of the same word for similar but distinct conditions is to blame for confusion and argument.
-
our poor use of the same word for similar but distinct conditions is to blame for confusion and argument.
You can say that a 1000x! Great point. How many quarrels happen because of miscommunications and poor/lazy/incorrect theological terms??? Or just bad grammar. That’s about 80% of this site.
-
Stubborn is right. If someone really wants to be baptized no one will be able to stop God from doing it. But if someone expresses a desire to be baptized and we don't do everything in our power to make it happen, we will be sorry.
Yes, this.
God's Providence is consistently the missing link in *all* BOD/BOB ideas, scenarios, and all the other teachings on it. Because with it, a BOD can never happen, just as without it, the sacrament can never happen.
-
I do not believe a Pre-Baptismal Justification can be anything other than a Baptism of Desire, i.e. Baptism in voto. Since Baptism, at least in the desire thereof, is necessary for Justification, it is impossible to obtain Justification without a Desire (Voto) for the Sacrament.
-
"X cannot be effected without A or B".
As has been shown, the text alone DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE both A and B.
You are most certainly imposing your interpretation on the text.
If I may,
and please be patient. I'm only trying to help.
This passage from Trent really divides the "wheat from the chaff". The only way to misunderstand it is an act of will.
The first analogy Stanley chose had two mutually exclusive variables, driving or walking. The will blocked the intellect here and it was passed off in his head as a logical equivalent.
The next attempt to deconstruct the dogma was use of a grammatical simplification as you see above but it fails as it implies no relationship between the variables A and B. This was also pushed past the intellect as an act of the will with the added audacity to declare Stubborn as guilty of bad will!
The two variables are indeed connected as evidenced in the passage itself and just a basic understanding of the Sacraments. First, the Fathers at Trent used the term "laver of regeneration" to express something less than baptism; the form and matter of the sacrament, minus the intention. The second indication of an inseparable link between the variables is the immediate scriptural support that is John 3.5 ("unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost....")
Every Catholic needing an analogy concerning this passage should immediately think Sacraments!
Confirmation cannot be effected without the signing of chrism and the will to be confirmed.
Holy orders cannot be effected without the laying on of hands and the will...
Extremunction cannot be effected without the signing with oil and the desire....
What Trent says is "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the form and matter, or the intent thereof,..." This is not interpretation, it is merely a translation into American from English. Trent is stating unequivocally, form, matter, and intent are necessary for Justification.
Rather than being a support for BOD, Chapter IV of the 6th Session of the Council of Trent disallows it.
The consequences of thinking Trent says otherwise brings us to where we are today. If the form and matter of the Sacraments are irrelevant, then the priesthood is irrelevant when you want Communion or Penance. A man and woman aren't necessary when you want a marriage. Etc, etc.
If you still disagree with me, please pray with the intention for faith, for yourself or for me. Someone here needs it bad.
-
I agree with Stanley. And, as some others also said, let's not keep accusing others of "bad will" unnecessarily. Unless any of us are divinely appointed Holy Inquisitors, and I don't think we are, it's not for us to unduly cast aspersions on the internal state of other professing Catholics. Let's debate and discuss in a proper manner, and explain and express our own conscientious Catholic convictions, so that we can all arrive at the Truth, and always with Charity for one other. Truth means nothing without Charity, just as Faith without Works is dead. Truth is important of course, but Truth in Charity always.
Quote from: Joe Z If I may, and please be patient. I'm only trying to help.
Joe, the example you give, "Confirmation cannot be effected without the signing of chrism and the will to be confirmed."
But firstly, (1) it doesn't say "AND" in Trent, but "OR". I gave three examples of this on another thread "I cannot quench my thirst without water or juice". The implication is, as I can quench my thirst through water, so can I do also through juice. Would you disagree?
(2) Secondly, Trent uses the specific term voto, in reference only to Three Sacraments, Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist. Do you agree that in reference to both Penance and the Eucharist, it is talking of Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion respectively? If you do, then why do you deny that with reference to Baptism alone, it refers to BOD? Trent is not talking about a natural disposition, but a supernatural desire when it uses the term voto. Trent later says "the eternal punishment is always taken away, either by the Sacrament, OR by the desire of the Sacrament" with reference to Penance. Here we see "OR" and not "AND" to indicate both remit sins.
(3) Thirdly, why don't we find anywhere in Trent such a statement with reference to Confirmation/Priesthood/Marriage/Unction? Why don't we find "without the Priesthood, or without the desire thereof, Mass cannot be offered" for e.g. Every Sacrament after all requires the will to receive it, even the Priesthood. Since there is no voto for the Priesthood, Trent simply says things like "Without the Priesthood, Mass cannot be offered". If it had meant to exclude Baptism of Desire, it would have said "Without the laver of regeneration, justification cannot be effected". But rather it said, in effect, "Without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", no justification.
Quote If you still disagree with me, please pray with the intention for faith, for yourself or for me.
I agree, as LT also said in one of the prayer threads, we should pray for another in spite of our differences. We are all Catholics here. If we cannot even get along with other Catholics who all agree at least 99% with each other, who will we get along with? Let's put our point across and debate and discuss vigorously, but let's do so with charity, and always making allowance as far as we can for the good faith of others.
God Bless.
-
This is not interpretation, it is merely a translation into American from English. Trent is stating unequivocally, form, matter, and intent are necessary for Justification.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.
.
Xavier, Stanley and others look at this sentence with a microscope and analyze the "or" phrase to death, meanwhile their new interpretation is uncatholic and doesn't jive with all the rest of Trent's teachings. They miss the forest for the trees.
-
This is not interpretation, it is merely a translation into American from English. Trent is stating unequivocally, form, matter, and intent are necessary for Justification.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.
.
Xavier, Stanley and others look at this sentence with a microscope and analyze the "or" phrase to death, meanwhile their new interpretation is uncatholic and doesn't jive with all the rest of Trent's teachings. They miss the forest for the trees.
Usually, when talking about "matter form and intent", the "intent" is in the minister. On the other hand, when talking of "votum", the "votum" is usually viewed in the recipient. Where do you think it is?
What I said was quite limited, that the phrase "without A or B" could be interpreted two ways, grammatically. Ladislaus recognizes that, and he has some expertise on Latin grammar. If you resolve those options to one, then you're using something outside the grammar.
And that's it, just a statement about grammar. It's not complicated. It's not a challenge to anyone's faith. If you have 5 arguments for some assertion, it shouldn't challenge anyone's faith to say one of those arguments doesn't prove the assertion.
There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.
-
Usually, when talking about "matter form and intent", the "intent" is in the minister. On the other hand, when talking of "votum" in regard to baptism, it is in the recipient. Which is it here, or is it something else?
In the context of history, in the 1500s, Trent's use of "intent" was two-fold. The intent of the minister is always necessary. But when talking of justification, the use of intent is obviously related to the recipient of the sacrament.
.
Further, Trent was condemning the idea that one could be "forced" to be baptized, a real-life problem that was happening during the protestant chaos. So, Trent was making it clear that one had to WANT to be baptized, for the sacrament to happen.
.
This is further corroborated when you look at the rest of the Trent's anathemas on baptism. Trent condemns all kinds of "scruples" related to sacramental validity. Many of these scruples are in relation to the recipient.
-
In the context of history, in the 1500s, Trent's use of "intent" was two-fold. The intent of the minister is always necessary. But when talking of justification, the use of intent is obviously related to the recipient of the sacrament.
So you really think this phrase from Trent meant both the intent of un unstated minister and the intent of the subject were required for justification, and that no exception or substitution is possible?
-
So you really think this phrase from Trent meant both the intent of un unstated minister and the intent of the subject were required for justification, and that no exception or substitution is possible?
The intent of the minister is implied, because a sacrament is not valid without the proper minister intent (this was taught long before Trent). The docuмent on justification is strictly dealing with the intent/preparation of the individual and what they have to know, believe and desire, before they can receive the sacrament properly.
-
The intent of the minister is implied, because a sacrament is not valid without the proper minister intent (this was taught long before Trent). The docuмent on justification is strictly dealing with the intent/preparation of the individual and what they have to know, believe and desire, before they can receive the sacrament properly.
Correct, from Trent's Cathechism:
"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".
-
Correct, from Trent's Cathechism:
"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".
I'd love to get the Latin of this, since this is precisely what I hold that Trent is saying that justification cannot be had without the Sacrament or the votum. In the case of a forced Baptism, without the votum, there would be no justification.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/useroff.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=706) Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Ladislaus/)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/post/xx.gif)
Pre-Baptismal Justification (for those who do not believe in BoD) (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/pre-baptismal-justification-(for-those-who-do-not-believe-in-bod)/msg734126/#msg734126)
« on: February 19, 2021, 11:53:08 AM »
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/useroff.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=706) Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Ladislaus/)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/post/xx.gif)
Pre-Baptismal Justification (for those who do not believe in BoD) (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/pre-baptismal-justification-(for-those-who-do-not-believe-in-bod)/msg734126/#msg734126)
« on: February 19, 2021, 11:53:08 AM »
I believe in pre-Baptismal justification. If you do not, please explain why.
No, the Council of Chalcedon (Leo the Great) is clear that the Blood of redemption can't be separated from the sacrament of baptism. The Council of Trent is clear that no man can be justified without the sacrament. The Council of Florence in Exsultate Domino is clear John 3:5 is taken literally. Also, the IV Lateran Council infallibly defined that only the "Faithful" are are in the Church and can be saved. All these are infallible according to Vatican I. The Faithful are only the water baptized. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia under "Faithful" is clear the term does not mean catechumens. Of course most BOD supporters hold the pagans and Jҽωs can also be saved even if they never convert, so talking about catechumens isn't even necessary..
-
I vote no. The Church teaches there is only one baptism. Justification is not baptism and therefore cannot in and of itself save. Baptism is baptism which includes justification and all the other goodies that make it salvific.
-
No, the Council of Chalcedon (Leo the Great) is clear that the Blood of redemption can't be separated from the sacrament of baptism. The Council of Trent is clear that no man can be justified without the sacrament. The Council of Florence in Exsultate Domino is clear John 3:5 is taken literally. Also, the IV Lateran Council infallibly defined that only the "Faithful" are are in the Church and can be saved. All these are infallible according to Vatican I. The Faithful are only the water baptized. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia under "Faithful" is clear the term does not mean catechumens. Of course most BOD supporters hold the pagans and Jҽωs can also be saved even if they never convert, so talking about catechumens isn't even necessary..
I get it that only the baptized are the "faithful," and only the faithful can be saved, but what of Fr. Feeney's distinction between justification and salvation? With regard to Chalcedon, even in a state of pre-Baptismal justification, it's the Sacrament (united with the Blood) that operates through the votum.
-
When Trent speaks of the votum it means either 1. Adults (votum) baptism or 2. Infants don't. It's not both. This is proved by what Trent says regarding penance. If you would like here is a person on Twitter @1friarminor that not many know about who can explain all these things much better than me.
-
Just to let you know, friarminor is NOT associated with mhfm. Friarminor has been evangelizing against VII & BOD before they had their website.
-
What I said was quite limited, that the phrase "without A or B" could be interpreted two ways, grammatically. Ladislaus recognizes that, and he has some expertise on Latin grammar. If you resolve those options to one, then you're using something outside the grammar.
This is my point exactly, though I am prone to poor expressions of my thoughts. I used context as I insist it must be preserved to maintain true meaning. The two variables are as connected as form, matter, and intent are when dealing with a sacrament. Whose intent depends of course on which sacrament is in question.
-
Joe, the example you give, "Confirmation cannot be effected without the signing of chrism and the will to be confirmed."
But firstly, (1) it doesn't say "AND" in Trent, but "OR". I gave three examples of this on another thread "I cannot quench my thirst without water or juice". The implication is, as I can quench my thirst through water, so can I do also through juice. Would you disagree?
(2) Secondly, Trent uses the specific term voto, in reference only to Three Sacraments, Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist. Do you agree that in reference to both Penance and the Eucharist, it is talking of Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion respectively? If you do, then why do you deny that with reference to Baptism alone, it refers to BOD? Trent is not talking about a natural disposition, but a supernatural desire when it uses the term voto. Trent later says "the eternal punishment is always taken away, either by the Sacrament, OR by the desire of the Sacrament" with reference to Penance. Here we see "OR" and not "AND" to indicate both remit sins.
(3) Thirdly, why don't we find anywhere in Trent such a statement with reference to Confirmation/Priesthood/Marriage/Unction? Why don't we find "without the Priesthood, or without the desire thereof, Mass cannot be offered" for e.g. Every Sacrament after all requires the will to receive it, even the Priesthood. Since there is no voto for the Priesthood, Trent simply says things like "Without the Priesthood, Mass cannot be offered". If it had meant to exclude Baptism of Desire, it would have said "Without the laver of regeneration, justification cannot be effected". But rather it said, in effect, "Without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof", no justification.
I agree, as LT also said in one of the prayer threads, we should pray for another in spite of our differences. We are all Catholics here. If we cannot even get along with other Catholics who all agree at least 99% with each other, who will we get along with? Let's put our point across and debate and discuss vigorously, but let's do so with charity, and always making allowance as far as we can for the good faith of others.
God Bless.
#1 So allow a correction; Confirmation cannot be effected without the signing with chrism or the intention. Both must be present. We know this. #1B, I do disagree. You also purposely used an analogy with mutually exclusive variables and this is intentionally dishonest.
#2 I'm not really sure what you are asking. I think voto means will in English so Trent means a movement or act of the will is required. A movement of the will is not a desire, it is a decision. So yes, I believe in the case of Penance, a person's will can be given the grace to move perfectly to confession and we call this Perfect Contrition. Why does't this apply to Baptism? I don't know why but I know it to be true because God said so through Trent and I'm not going to question His reasoning.
#3 I suppose because those sacraments didn't need bolstering or definitions at the time. The sacraments are all unique. Some bear some similarities to others but that similarity cannot be used to deconstruct the truth/falsity of a dogmatic proposition.
3B The fathers at Trent were not trying to exclude BOD here because they didn't need to exclude an error that almost no one at the time believed anyway. They were excluding the idea of forced baptisms which if read your way, this passage actually allows. If Trent is saying the will is adequate, minus the laver, then laver is adequate minus the will.
Good night and God bless,
thank you for your prayers. JoeZ
-
Sorry for the serious thread derail.
-
I'd love to get the Latin of this, since this is precisely what I hold that Trent is saying that justification cannot be had without the Sacrament or the votum. In the case of a forced Baptism, without the votum, there would be no justification.
no. 38
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_V__OfPSsuGoC/page/n159/mode/1up
-
I used context as I insist it must be preserved to maintain true meaning. The two variables are as connected as form, matter, and intent are when dealing with a sacrament.
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.)
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.
Penance: Can there be no forgiveness without the sacrament of penance in re? No perfect contrition?
.
Confirmation: Do the gifts of the holy ghost not exist in the soul without the sacrament of confirmation?
.
Communion: Are the fruits of communion possible through "spiritual communion" at least in some limited way?
.
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.
.
Last rites: not sure but should be similar to penance.
.
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.
.
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.
Whose intent depends of course on which sacrament is in question.
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?
-
Quote from Xavier:
(2) Secondly, Trent uses the specific term voto, in reference only to Three Sacraments, Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist. Do you agree that in reference to both Penance and the Eucharist, it is talking of Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion respectively? If you do, then why do you deny that with reference to Baptism alone, it refers to BOD? Trent is not talking about a natural disposition, but a supernatural desire when it uses the term voto. Trent later says "the eternal punishment is always taken away, either by the Sacrament, OR by the desire of the Sacrament" with reference to Penance. Here we see "OR" and not "AND" to indicate both remit sins.
#2 I'm not really sure what you are asking. I think voto means will in English so Trent means a movement or act of the will is required. A movement of the will is not a desire, it is a decision. So yes, I believe in the case of Penance, a person's will can be given the grace to move perfectly to confession and we call this Perfect Contrition. Why does't this apply to Baptism? I don't know why but I know it to be true because God said so through Trent and I'm not going to question His reasoning.
What Xavier is trying to say is that Trent teaches forgiveness of sins via perfect contrition and without the sacrament of penance is possible, and also that grace is attainable via spiritual communion - so why doesn't the same reasoning apply to a BOD when Trent said "either or"?
Yes, forgiveness and grace can apply to Penance and the Eucharist without the sacrament, but only among those who've been already sacramentally baptized - if the person was never sacramentally baptized, then no forgiveness or graces can be received, Trent never said otherwise. Xavier is grasping at straws here.
As you already said, BODers understanding of "or" not "and" means one may receive the sacrament against their will, which Trent's catechism clearly forbids.
-
Nope, Xavier isn't grasping at straws. It's clear when you read Trent in Latin. Trent says "aut eius voto" with respect to Baptism (which means "Or the Desire Thereof/Or the Desire of it), and then it says "aut eorum voto" with respect to both Baptism and Penance, in one of its canons on justification. i.e. "without the sacraments, or without the desire of them". Now, these "them" here can only be referring to Baptism and Penance. Since the voto of at least Two Sacraments thus confers justification, it is obvious the voto of Baptism, just like the voto of Penance, confers justification. Those who read it otherwise are wrong, and no one did so for about 500 years before recently.
But is that statement really accurate? If you are referring to the intention to receive it, you should say "AND". The Matter, the Form AND the Intention should be present. We don't say Matter and Form, OR the Intention. One more indication Trent is not referring to intention here.
Canon IV, in saying the sacraments are necessary for salvation, explicitly say "the sacraments of the new law" themselves, i.e. the actual, physical sacraments - all of them - although as Trent says, not all are necessary for everyone.
Of all the sacraments, you BODers believe the only sacrament that is without any doubt whatsoever certainly necessary for salvation, the sacrament of baptism, is one of those sacraments *not* necessary for salvation.
Incredible actually.
Think about this little snip from Fr. Feeney regarding a dead presumed recipient of a BOD....."Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again – he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it."
-
no. 38
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_V__OfPSsuGoC/page/n159/mode/1up
Thank you very much. What a great resource! Now to find this passage.
-
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.)
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.
Penance: Can there be no forgiveness without the sacrament of penance in re? No perfect contrition?
.
Confirmation: Do the gifts of the holy ghost not exist in the soul without the sacrament of confirmation?
.
Communion: Are the fruits of communion possible through "spiritual communion" at least in some limited way?
.
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.
.
Last rites: not sure but should be similar to penance.
.
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.
.
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.
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?
SOME graces of SOME of the Sacraments can be received before the reception of the Sacrament in re. But the question here is whether all the graces necessary for salvation (vs. justification) can be received in voto. So, for instance, even if justification can be arrived at with just the votum, does that state of justification suffice for salvation? I concur with Father Feeney that it does not.
I'm on the fence about pre-Baptismal justification. I'm inclined to believe that it can happen in some cases, but that the Sacramental character of Baptism is required for the beatific vision. I take Father Feeney's position just a step further and contend that if someone, hypothetically only since I believe with St. Augustine that this can't happen in actual fact, WOULD die in a state of justification without the Sacramental character, he would enter into a state similar to the Limbo of the Fathers. [Father Feeney answered "I don't know" to that question.]
This renders the interpretation of the Trent passage moot. I still do hold, however, that Trent is saying that the votum is ALSO required, not that it suffices, for justification. This interpretation is backed up by that passage from the Catechism of Trent cited above by Stubborn. I'll have to find the Latin to see if the term votum appears there (or some verbal form of it). If that exists there, then an "either ... or ..." reading of the passage doesn't work, because you'd be contradicting the Catechism in asserting that the laver can justify without the votum. There's a Canon in Trent that says the same thing, that the Sacrament cannot justify without the (will and intention) to receive it.
I think we all, including Xavier, should agree that "desire" is a horrible translation that has done no service to the debate. Even Catholic Encyclopedia rejects it as entirely inadequate. votum is a VOW, and is linguistically related to the word "will", so it means more along the lines of will and intention, but it's even more concrete, like a wedding vow, where there's a huge difference between desiring to get married and making the vow. So it's a "firm resolution" at the very least. That kind of reading would preclude it being applicable to some Great Thumb worshipper in the jungle who's never even heard of Baptism. Which is, IMO, PRECISELY why they watered this down with the "desire" translation.
This phrase "Baptism of Desire" needs to be completely stricken from our vocabulary, replaced with something more along the lines of "intention" or "resolution". Of course the term "Baptism of" is also problematic, since these folks do not actually receive "Baptism" (of which there is only one, with the term "Three Baptisms" being an "offensive to pious ears" expression directly contradicting the Creed.
-
Thank you very much. What a great resource! Now to find this passage.
So this time the link took me right to it. It uses the verbal forms of "vo-lo", which is in fact linguistically related to "vo-tum", with the "vo-" root having the meaning of "willing" something.
-
it is obvious the voto of Baptism, just like the voto of Penance, confers justification. Those who read it otherwise are wrong, and no one did so for about 500 years before recently.
No, it's not obvious. Fr. Cekada only found 25 theologians who mentioned BoD, most of them in passing, who likely didn't even study the text on the matter but were just repeating the opinion of St. Thomas regarding BoD.
As I pointed out, only 9 of the 25 assigned a higher theological note to BoD than to BoB, from which we can infer that only 9 actually felt that Trent taught "Baptism of Desire"; otherwise, all 25 would have given BoD a higher theological note than BoB.
BTW, this reading of Trent eliminates the notion of Baptism of Blood as something distinct from Baptism of Desire, the quasi-ex opere operantis thing that St. Alphonsus held it.
Those who claim that Trent is teaching Baptism of Desire, please explain how this does not eliminate BoB as something distinct from BoD. If Trent were teaching the "Three Baptisms" here, why does it only mention 2?
-
it is obvious the voto of Baptism, just like the voto of Penance, confers justification.
Only to those who read Trent like Protestants - picking and choosing texts to make connections which don't exist.
-
I just want to add -- that this is really a waste of time. If someone is inclined to become Catholic, they must be baptized, period. That is the only advice I've ever seen or READ ABOUT Traditional Catholics giving out. Infants should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.
I fail to see the problem. Are Traditional Catholics -- those who actually care about the Faith -- really putting off, downplaying, or rejecting baptism, hoping for another form of salvation?
I didn't think that was a real issue today. Prove me wrong.
And no I'm not talking about heretics or modernists. They don't have the Faith to begin with. They're missing a LOT MORE than just the doctrine on how to be saved by Baptism and membership in the One True Church. Their virtue of Faith looks like New York after a Roland Emmerich disaster movie. I'm talking about Traditional Catholics -- which we all are. Those with the Faith. Those who call each other heretics over the BoD issue.
-
Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 12:46:40 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/pre-baptismal-justification-(for-those-who-do-not-believe-in-bod)/msg735991/#msg735991)
I'd love to get the Latin of this, since this is precisely what I hold that Trent is saying that justification cannot be had without the Sacrament or the votum. In the case of a forced Baptism, without the votum, there would be no justification.
As I said earlier, I suggest people privately contact @1friarminor, since he actually understands Latin and has been in the "business" for over 30 years. He points out the fact that infants can't have the votum but adults must have it. That is why the Council makes a distinction, which is further proved by what is said regarding Penance. This famous section is not what BOD supporters think it is. This is where the confusion comes from. Anyone of goodwill should have no problem contacting this guy.
-
I just want to add -- that this is really a waste of time. If someone is inclined to become Catholic, they must be baptized, period. That is the only advice I've ever seen or READ ABOUT Traditional Catholics giving out. Infants should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.
I fail to see the problem. Are Traditional Catholics -- those who actually care about the Faith -- really putting off, downplaying, or rejecting baptism, hoping for another form of salvation?
I didn't think that was a real issue today. Prove me wrong.
And no I'm not talking about heretics or modernists. They don't have the Faith to begin with. They're missing a LOT MORE than just the doctrine on how to be saved by Baptism and membership in the One True Church. Their virtue of Faith looks like New York after a Roland Emmerich disaster movie. I'm talking about Traditional Catholics -- which we all are. Those with the Faith. Those who call each other heretics over the BoD issue.
Traditional Catholics will definitely say that baptism is necessary, but when pressed, many follow their belief with, "But there's also baptism of desire." They do it all the time. Why they add that is strange because it automatically promotes laxity (in the listener) because it suggests an alternate way to salvation and at least subtly undermines the necessity of baptism. A poll asking traditional Catholics on CI if they believe in bod will show most do believe in it and therefore willingly or unwillingly they promote an alternate way to salvation. To me this isn't a waste of time because one is necessarily true, the other is not. It might be a waste of time because it's been hashed for years with little effect in this forum, but not because the differences don't matter.
-
Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 12:46:40 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/pre-baptismal-justification-(for-those-who-do-not-believe-in-bod)/msg735991/#msg735991)As I said earlier, I suggest people privately contact @1friarminor, since he actually understands Latin and has been in the "business" for over 30 years. He points out the fact that infants can't have the votum but adults must have it. That is why the Council makes a distinction, which is further proved by what is said regarding Penance. This famous section is not what BOD supporters think it is. This is where the confusion comes from. Anyone of goodwill should have no problem contacting this guy.
Well, I looked at his Twitter account and he seems to be misusing a quotation based on a misunderstanding of Latin. So I lost confidence right away.
In any case, I've been reading Latin for about 35 years now so I understand it quite well also.
-
I just want to add -- that this is really a waste of time. If someone is inclined to become Catholic, they must be baptized, period. That is the only advice I've ever seen or READ ABOUT Traditional Catholics giving out. Infants should be baptized as soon as possible after birth.
I fail to see the problem. Are Traditional Catholics -- those who actually care about the Faith -- really putting off, downplaying, or rejecting baptism, hoping for another form of salvation?
I didn't think that was a real issue today. Prove me wrong.
In the practical order, you're right for the most part ... except that the notion of Baptism of Desire could actually, ironically, undermine a person's desire for Baptism, so that they desire the desire for Baptism.
But, in any case, this all dovetails with a lot of key theological issues that are critical to the understanding of the Vatican II errors. Modernists have used an extended concept of BoD to undermine EENS dogma. Once you undermine EENS dogma that way, then it leads directly to the Vatican II ecclesiology. So if such a thing as an extended implicit BoD does exist, then V2 ecclesiology is legitimate, and so are all the allegedly erroneous statements in V2.
So, apart from the Liturgical question, our entire raison d'etre for Traditional Catholicism, from the theological standpoint, evaporates ... given this ecclesiology.
I know I've skipped logical steps here. I've drawn them out elsewhere. But THIS is the reason why some of us feel that the theological principles tied in to Baptism of Desire and to EENS are absolutely critical. I've said it before and I'll say it again here now. If someone were to convince me that "Hindus in Tibet" can be saved without first converting, then I would immediately drop all resistance to the theology of Vatican II and would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, since I would have no theological justification for opposing it. I've demonstrated how every single error Traditional Catholics cite in Vatican II derives from this ecclesiology.
-
Well, I looked at his ƚwιƚƚeɾ account and he seems to be misusing a quotation based on a misunderstanding of Latin. So I lost confidence right away.
In any case, I've been reading Latin for about 35 years now so I understand it quite well also.
Without ever speaking to him? What is he wrong about? If we care to find the truth, please contact him and tell him why he is wrong. After all, the truth is what we should care about. He always seems fine with speaking to people who disagree. With your Latin experience I think people can learn a lot. Let's not bury our talents.
-
In the practical order, you're right for the most part ... except that the notion of Baptism of Desire could actually, ironically, undermine a person's desire for Baptism, so that they desire the desire for Baptism.
But, in any case, this all dovetails with a lot of key theological issues that are critical to the understanding of the Vatican II errors. Modernists have used an extended concept of BoD to undermine EENS dogma. Once you undermine EENS dogma that way, then it leads directly to the Vatican II ecclesiology. So if such a thing as an extended implicit BoD does exist, then V2 ecclesiology is legitimate, and so are all the allegedly erroneous statements in V2.
So, apart from the Liturgical question, our entire raison d'etre for Traditional Catholicism, from the theological standpoint, evaporates ... given this ecclesiology.
I know I've skipped logical steps here. I've drawn them out elsewhere. But THIS is the reason why some of us feel that the theological principles tied in to Baptism of Desire and to EENS are absolutely critical. I've said it before and I'll say it again here now. If someone were to convince me that "Hindus in Tibet" can be saved without first converting, then I would immєdιαtely drop all resistance to the theology of Vatican II and would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, since I would have no theological justification for opposing it. I've demonstrated how every single error Traditional Catholics cite in Vatican II derives from this ecclesiology.
I still don't see how Lefebvre's EENS position would somehow lead to the Novus Ordo being licit or religious liberty being a thing. Those seem like separate issues to me.
-
Well, I looked at his ƚwιƚƚeɾ account and he seems to be misusing a quotation based on a misunderstanding of Latin. So I lost confidence right away.
In any case, I've been reading Latin for about 35 years now so I understand it quite well also.
Hello, I would like to know what quotation friarminor is misusing? Thank You
-
I still don't see how Lefebvre's EENS position would somehow lead to the Novus Ordo being licit or religious liberty being a thing. Those seem like separate issues to me.
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.
-
Hello, I would like to know what quotation friarminor is misusing? Thank You
Sure (at the top of his Twitter account):
Baptism is the Sacrament of faith, without which, no man was ever justified.
If you look at the Latin, the antecedent of the "which" is not "Sacrament of faith" but just faith. It's ambiguous in English, but in Latin it's clear (due to the gender of the relative pronoun) that it's the "faith" without which no man was ever justified, not the "Sacrament of faith".
-
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.
-
Sure (at the top of his ƚwιƚƚeɾ account):
If you look at the Latin, the antecedent of the "which" is not "Sacrament of faith" but just faith. It's ambiguous in English, but in Latin it's clear (due to the gender of the relative pronoun) that it's the "faith" without which no man was ever justified, not the "Sacrament of faith".
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
He's right. Trend did not define it for Baptism. All I'm saying is that a reference to Baptism as the Sacrament of faith BY ITSELF does not RULE IT OUT either.
-
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
-
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 immєdιαte 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.
So you know BOD to be false? Even the BOD of St. Thomas? Fascinating.
If a sentence is ambiguous, it cannot be used as a proof text.
And there is no problem with the rest of the sentence. It doesn't exclude extraordinary means, any more than this does:
"Unless you eat of this flesh and drink of this blood, you shall not have life in you".
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."
Do you really think these are response to what I wrote? You wanted to analogize from the other sacraments.
While the sacraments provide sacramental graces, some of those sacramental graces can be had without the sacraments in re. In penance, the main grace of the sacrament -restoration of justice - can be had without the sacrament itself. Likewise, confirmation is a sacrament of the living; it doesn't give sanctifying grace, it increases it. And so on.
Your interpretation for baptism wouldn't fit any other sacrament, though as I said, there are potential reasons baptism could be unique in this matter.
-
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..."
-
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.
I don't see why faith can't be had before the sacrament, but I do not think that is really at issue. What is at issue is the idea (the prot doctrine) that faith alone (a BOD) saves. Faith in exactly what? - who knows? Why no one knows is because being that they are not yet baptized into the faith, they are outside of the Church, so catechumens excepted, who knows what faith those outside of the Church have?
Even when the prots abuse the sacrament of baptism by baptizing their own people outside of the Church, *that* baptism does not save because they do not believe in the doctrines of the Church, nor do they believe in the Church - but they supposedly "have faith in Jesus etc."
Their stealing of our sacrament of baptism to misuse for their own purpose, is surely almost, or even as sacrilegious or blasphemous as would be if they stole hosts from the tabernacle and distributed to their people on the tongue while on their knees.
-
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.
-
As often as I have asked a BoDer to define "Baptism of Desire," I've gotten the definition that it's a combination of faith and perfect contrition without even a token mention of an intention to receive Baptism. That definition is heretical per Trent. There must also be the intention and determination (i.e. firm resolution) to receive Baptism. But that would be inconvenient, since it would limit BoD to, basically, catechumens, or other people who believed at least in the Sacrament of Baptism, and positively excludes those who have a contempt for the Sacrament or who do not believe in it. That's why they water it down to the heretical concept of faith and perfect charity alone.
-
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.
-
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.
Sigh. I just spent a paragraph explaining that having the votum for Baptism doesn't constitute justification by faith alone. It's justification by faith + charity (perfection contrition) + the intention to receive Baptism.
Believing in a (Thomistic or Bellarmine) form of BoD is not tantamount to saying that people are saved WITHOUT the Sacrament. Trent doesn't clarify whether without the Sacrament means without the "actual reception" of the Sacrament (i.e. in re).
This argument from the "necessity" of Baptism does not preclude BoD per se. Even in a BoD scenario, the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary at least by intention. You cannot have the intention to receive Baptism without, well, Baptism. Therefore the Sacrament remains necessary.
I agree that there's a fine blur here between saying that your subjective dispositions (including the desire) justify --- which is Pelagianism -- and that the Sacrament is the instrumental cause of justification operating through the desire for it, and most BoDers fall squarely into the Pelagian camp.
-
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"?
-
1) Xavier, what does the opening sentence (bolded) mean to you?
2) Xavier, what is Trent condemning in the plain text?
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.
3) Xavier, what is it Trent says cannot be effected without the sacrament "or the desire thereof"? (note, Trent does not say "or without the desire thereof")
4) Xavier, what does "as it is written" mean to you?
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.
5) Xavier, what do you say Trent is condemning in this canon?
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for
baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our
Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him
be anathema.
6) Xavier, what do you say Trent is condemning in this canon?
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto
salvation; let him be anathema.
-
Now we're starting to see your true motives come out, Xavier. You clearly promote Pelgianism and the heretical notion that justification can be had without the Sacraments. To hold that shedding a few tears in front of a Crucifix, even by some heretic who never even heard of it, is utterly preposterous and heretical.
Trent's intention is absolutely clear. Perfect Contrition must be combined with an intention and firm resolution to go to Confession. This implicit desire crap that you promote is heretical. THIS is why you and your ilk deliberately mistranslate votum as desire.
In the final analysis, you're nothing but a run-of-the-mill heretical denier of EENS. You explain EENS away to the point of rendering it a "meaningless formula" and have a completely Pelagian notion of justification.
-
Xavier and Ladislaus: You're both saying there is no true contrition for sins without an intention to go to confession.
There may be some importance to the wording one way or another, but it looks like you're arguing semantics.
-
(2) when a person has contrition, the desire of the Sacrament is "included therein", i.e. is included in the contrition itself. This is how the theological writers explain Contrition.
Absolutely not true. Going to confession involves contrition (obviously) but it also involves humility and (sometimes) shame. Sorry, contrition (an emotion) is totally separate from the decision/promise (an act) to go to confession.
.
Protestants have all kinds of contrition for their sins (if you believe them) but they would shudder in horror at the idea of telling their sins to a priest on a regular basis.
.
Plenty of people don't like being overweight (an emotion). But plenty of them never do anything about it (no action). Emotions without actions solve nothing. This applies in both the natural and supernatural realms.
-
Heh. You blatantly misrepresented what Trent said. I quoted it twice in front of your face giving you a way to save face, but you continue to reject what it says: it says the DESIRE is INCLUDED in CONTRITION.
You're reading it backwards ... on purpose because you WANT to see implicit desire for Confession here. What it's ACTUALLY saying is that the intention to Confess must be included in any act of perfect contrition. All it's saying is that justification cannot happen without including the intention to Confess also in it, i.e. cannot happen independently of the intention to Confess. In other words, there's no such thing as perfect contrition without also including the intention to Confess. That is all that Trent is saying, pretty much the opposite of what you're pushing.
-
II. Pope St. Pius X: "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Pius X said that? Where did he say it?
-
Pius X said that? Where did he say it?
That is from the Catechism of Pius X. See #17 in the Baptism section.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catechism-of-st-pius-x-1286
-
II. Pope St. Pius X: "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Last Tradhican asked: Pius X said that? Where did he say it?
Stanley N answered: That is from the Catechism of Pius X. See #17 in the Baptism section.
Then Pius X did not say that, the spammer XavierSem was just posting the same lie again.
-
Foundation & Objective of False BODers like XavierSem
The foundation of the never-ending, incessant, creation of threads on BOD by False BODers like XavierSem, is their disbelief that un-baptized nice people are damned. They must find an answer to that disbelief, they are obsessed by this disbelief, and so they seek teachers according to their own desires. Here is that honest admission by the late Fr. Cekada R.I.P.:
Quote
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
(* I am not talking about a believer in the strict BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas, for that is a harmless theory. The few BODers who limit their belief to the catechumen of St. Thomas are rare, and never have I seen one start a thread, or write a book or article on the subject. Why? Because numerically speaking, it applies to no one, if compared to the billions who have perished since the time of the new covenant.)
The Objective
The objective of the false BODer is to send an un-baptized non-Catholic person to heaven:
1) without the sacrament of baptism
2) without the indelible mark
3) without the sacrament of penance
4) without being a member of the Body
5) without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity
6) even without any desire to be a Catholic, indeed, even while despising the Church, Christ, and the Trinity
All the points above are hurdles, which the False BODer is obsseed with overcoming and for which he seeks teachers according to his own desire.
-
Stubborn, I will answer your questions, but please answer mine. (1) Was St. Mary Magdalene justified, as Fr. Haydock says she was? If so, how, if not by "faith that works by charity or contrition"? (2) Was Cornelius justified, as Fr. Haydock says? If so, again, HOW?
Let me take your last two questions, very briefly.
5. Trent is condemning the idea that some other matter e.g. milk can be used in place of water for Baptism. This is found in St. Thomas.
6. Baptism is not "optional", because it is necessary for salvation "in re or in voto". This is found in Canon Law, and so it is not "optional"
You have cited a passage in St. Alphonsus to me before, I'll have to find it again. Doesn't it say something like: "The heretics say, no sacrament at all is necessary. But the Council of Trent said Three Sacraments were necessary. Thus, Baptism is necessary for all, Confession for those who have fallen after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire". That's a paraphrase from memory, but that passage, which I'm sure you know, explains it. Trent itself says Baptism and Penance are necessary in the same way.
5) No, that is not wresting the words into some metaphor, all orange juice does is simply invalidate the actual sacrament - it does not wrest to some sort of metaphor the actual sacrament - please try again.
6) No, YOU say it is necessary "in re or in voto" - that is your own addition, Trent adds no such distinction or exception. Trent, under the heading of "Baptism", which is under the heading of "On the Sacraments in General" condemns saying what you are saying, namely, that the sacrament of baptism is optional and the sacrament is not necessary for salvation - please try again.
Re: St Mary Magdalene and St Cornelius - you are using OT saints who could be justified under the old law without the sacrament. As Trent says, justification cannot not be effected without the sacrament "since the promulgation of the Gospel" - so it is futile to use OT saints prior to "the promulgation of the Gospel" - it is not until after that, that the sacraments became wholly obligatory to every human creature.
-
So I was listening to the EWTN apologetics show Call to Communion "starring" David Anders. Here's an illustration from the natural logical progression from Xavier's position.
Some woman called up asking if Confession was mandatory for Catholics. She had fallen away and was reluctant to come back because of Confession. BTW, my experience has been that 95% of those who leave the Church do so on account of moral reasons (annulments, contraception, and Confession ... not wanting to Confess) rather than due to a sincere theological conversion.
In any case, Anders responded that technically speaking Confession wasn't required because all the people in the Old Testament just didn't have it, but that it's "profoundly good" in that it brings comfort and the assurance of forgiveness vs. just confessing your sins to God. But the Church does require that Catholics confess once a year.
Based on this, the woman could conclude that she merely had to go once a year to remain compliant, but that in between, when she has fallen into mortal sin, she could be forgiven and continue going to Communion without Confession, that Confession was necessary by necessity of ecclesiastical precept only. In fact, other Catholics listening to the program could conclude the same thing.
Shameful.
-
I got into it with Ladislaus and Stubborn (perhaps others) some years back about the "necessity" of the sacraments. We (myself included) have interpreted this as "necessity of means," as a sort of sine qua non for salvation. But is that what is meant by necessity?
In my prior discussion with Lad and Stubborn I had posted St. Thomas from the Summa on the necessity of the sacraments:
Article 1. Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?
Objection 1. It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 4:8): "Bodily exercise is profitable to little." But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, as stated above (Question 60, Article 6). Therefore sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.
Objection 2. Further, the Apostle was told (2 Corinthians 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee." But it would not suffice if sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
Objection 3. Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Romans 5:10): "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." Therefore sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's salvation.
I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.
The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.
The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.
It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.
Reply to Objection 1. Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its causality.
Reply to Objection 2. God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.
Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say, applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Romans 6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death."
Where does St. Thomas interpret "necessity" there as a sine qua non, as something without which salvation is impossible? I don't see it.
Now, in light of the influence St. Thomas exerted on the Church at the time of Trent, might not this Thomistic sense of "necessity" be what the Church meant?
Also, I recall the canon condemning the position that the sacraments were not necessary using a word translated as "superfluous," and I think the Latin word there meant something like "optional."
In the discussion with Lad I had argued that the "necessity of means" language was a construct of theologians, and the Church has never used that phrase in Magisterial statements.
I'll duck for cover in anticipation of the barrage.
DR
-
Where does St. Thomas interpret "necessity" there as a sine qua non, as something without which salvation is impossible? I don't see it.
Now, in light of the influence St. Thomas exerted on the Church at the time of Trent, might not this Thomistic sense of "necessity" be what the Church meant?
What if Trent actually meant exactly what Trent said? What then? Since it does, then we must read it according to V1's instruction, this means we are to read it knowing that the meaning of the sacred dogmas of Trent are to be understood exactly as declared and written, we would further know that there must never be any abandonment of this sense, lest we insert our own puny ideas into it, thereby rejecting the true and actual divine revelation Trent gave us, and this many do under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding - in direct opposition to how we must understand dogma per V1.
Since the time of V2, too many people act as if, and perhaps many don't, have even the most basic, Catholic understanding of what is written any more. Theologians and other of the Church's learned are altogether unnecessary in order to understand what Trent taught, all anyone with basic Catholic understanding has to do is read what they wrote - and they will understand it as it is written. Again, Trent is not the ambiguous, diabolical double talking docs of V2, neither is Trent written in parables or other hard to understand Scripture.
-
What if Trent actually meant exactly what Trent said? What then? Since it does, then we must read it according to V1's instruction, this means we are to read it knowing that the meaning of the sacred dogmas of Trent are to be understood exactly as declared and written, we would further know that there must never be any abandonment of this sense, lest we insert our own puny ideas into it, thereby rejecting the true and actual divine revelation Trent gave us, and this many do under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding - in direct opposition to how we must understand dogma per V1.
Since the time of V2, too many people act as if, and perhaps many don't, have even the most basic, Catholic understanding of what is written any more. Theologians and other of the Church's learned are altogether unnecessary in order to understand what Trent taught, all anyone with basic Catholic understanding has to do is read what they wrote - and they will understand it as it is written. Again, Trent is not the ambiguous, diabolical double talking docs of V2, neither is Trent written in parables or other hard to understand Scripture.
Stubborn,
Trent says "necessary," and so does St. Thomas. St. Thomas, as "necessary" is written, doesn't use it in a sine qua non sense. Even your approach doesn't resolve anything.
-
Stubborn,
Trent says "necessary," and so does St. Thomas. St. Thomas, as "necessary" is written, doesn't use it in a sine qua non sense. Even your approach doesn't resolve anything.
"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; ...let him be anathema". This means what it says. A BOD makes the reception of the sacrament not necessary, i.e. superfluous.
This canon is saying the same thing that is repeated in the other canons - there is no contradiction among Trent's teachings. Trent is clearly saying the sacraments are necessary for salvation and they are saying it in a sine qua non sense, i.e. no sacrament = no salvation.
To say a BOD saves is saying exactly what Trent condemns in the above canon for the simple reason that a BOD is not a sacrament, therefore it can never save anyone.
Correct me if I am wrong, but BODers, while reading Trent, necessarily must say within themselves a lot, "it doesn't mean that", and "what they really mean is _____" But when understood as it is written, it does mean that, always has, always will because it means what it says.
-
"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; ...let him be anathema". This means what it says. A BOD makes the reception of the sacrament not necessary, i.e. superfluous.
This canon is saying the same thing that is repeated in the other canons - there is no contradiction among Trent's teachings. Trent is clearly saying the sacraments are necessary for salvation and they are saying it in a sine qua non sense, i.e. no sacrament = no salvation.
To say a BOD saves is saying exactly what Trent condemns in the above canon for the simple reason that a BOD is not a sacrament, therefore it can never save anyone.
Correct me if I am wrong, but BODers, while reading Trent, necessarily must say within themselves a lot, "it doesn't mean that", and "what they really mean is _____" But when understood as it is written, it does mean that, always has, always will because it means what it says.
Speaking of exactly what Trent says, I was reading a discussion I was involved in on another site, and in the midst of the discussion (which I had forgotten) this bσɱbshell:
Let's turn now to the text of Trent:
Text: Quae quidem translatio post Evengelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: <<Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.>>
Translation: Indeed, after the promulgation of the Gospel, this translation [from original sin to the state of grace], cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration, or if one cannot receive it, a desire for it [i.e. the laver]; as it says in Scripture, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Commentary: Trent uses the exclusive disjunction "aut" because of the phrase "fuerit non potest." Although baptism and the desire for baptism aren't mutually exclusive, receiving baptism and not being able to receive baptism are.
The phrase "fieri non potest" is the key. The translator above later revised his translation to read, "or if this is not possible." Thus:
Indeed, after the promulgation of the Gospel, this translation [from original sin to the state of grace], cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration, or if this is not possible, a desire for it [i.e. the laver]; as it says in Scripture, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
I went back and checked the Latin, and indeed the Council of Trent in the text at issue in Session VI, Chapter 4 says "fieri non potest."
If this doesn't explode the argument that the "aut" in Trent is conjunctive - meaning that the water of baptism and the desire for it are both necessary, I don't know what does. Trent says that one may be justified from the curse of Adam's sin to a state of grace in Christ by water baptism or, "fieri non potest" ("if not possible"), the desire for baptism.
I'll wait to hear why this argument - BASED ON TRENT AS WRITTEN - doesn't hold water (no pun intended).
-
That this bσɱbshell translation is bad should be obvious, the only way it would not be obvious is if *all* of Trent's other teachings on the sacrament are completely ignored.
If one person can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, then all people can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, which makes, as Trent condemns, the sacraments themselves superfluous. Prove me wrong.
-
That this bσɱbshell translation is bad should be obvious, the only way it would not be obvious is if *all* of Trent's other teachings on the sacrament are completely ignored.
If one person can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, then all people can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, which makes, as Trent condemns, the sacraments themselves superfluous. Prove me wrong.
Ok, Stubborn, what do you say "fieri non potest" means then? After all, that is what the passage says, as written.
-
Ok, Stubborn, what do you say "fieri non potest" means then? After all, that is what the passage says, as written.
Who knows? BODers keep searching and seeking for what they believe - so those three Latin words may as well mean "that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous".
I do not believe any BODer can possibly disagree with this.
-
That this bσɱbshell translation is bad should be obvious, the only way it would not be obvious is if *all* of Trent's other teachings on the sacrament are completely ignored.
If one person can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, then all people can be saved through a BOD without the sacraments, which makes, as Trent condemns, the sacraments themselves superfluous. Prove me wrong.
Ok. Again - I mentioned this earlier regarding "superfluous" - let's look at the actual language of Trent.
Canon 5 from Session VII on the sacraments says:
Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem: anathema sit.
The translation of Denzinger that I am now looking at (edition 43 edited by Peter Hunermann), translates this as:
If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
The key word here is "liberum," translated as "optional." As Trent says, this word liberum/optional is itself glossed, "hoc est non necessarium," or "that is, not necessary."
"Liberum" comes from "liber," and I believe is being used in the sense of "free or exempt from," - Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, līber (tufts.edu) (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=liber1)
As you can see from reading the passage "as written," "not necessary" is being equated with optional or free or voluntary, as if the sacrament of baptism can be dispensed with because of, e.g, the truth that justification can come from a "desire for the sacrament."
That is what is condemned by Trent "as written;" that is the type of "necessity" Trent speaks of baptism as having: it is not optional, or something one can forego as not necessary.
This is a discussion in search of truth, and I'm no Latinist, so I welcome correction or another view.
-
Who knows? BODers keep searching and seeking for what they believe - so those three Latin words may as well mean "that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous".
I do not believe any BODer can possibly disagree with this.
Non-responsive.
-
Ok. Again - I mentioned this earlier regarding "superfluous" - let's look at the actual language of Trent.
Canon 5 from Session VII on the sacraments says:
The translation of Denzinger that I am now looking at (edition 43 edited by Peter Hunermann), translates this as:
The key word here is "liberum," translated as "optional." As Trent says, this word liberum/optional is itself glossed, "hoc est non necessarium," or "that is, not necessary."
"Liberum" comes from "liber," and I believe is being used in the sense of "free or exempt from," - Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, līber (tufts.edu) (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=liber1)
As you can see from reading the passage "as written," "not necessary" is being equated with optional or free or voluntary, as if the sacrament of baptism can be dispensed with because of, e.g, the truth that justification can come from a "desire for the sacrament."
That is what is condemned by Trent "as written;" that is the type of "necessity" Trent speaks of baptism as having: it is not optional, or something one can forego as not necessary.
This is a discussion in search of truth, and I'm no Latinist, so I welcome correction or another view.
Not sure I understand you correctly, Do you believe the original Latin is saying opposite of what is translated in Denzinger? IOW, you believe it says that "baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation"? Is that what you are saying?
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but BODers, while reading Trent, necessarily must say within themselves a lot, "it doesn't mean that", and "what they really mean is _____" But when understood as it is written, it does mean that, always has, always will because it means what it says.
Yep, if the dogmas do not mean what they say, then whatever the BODers say means nothing. If I need an interpreter for dogma, then dogma is worthless.
Anyhow, they have a ton of hurdles to make besides that one point, and they'll do the same with those hurdles.
Foundation & Objective of False BODers like XavierSem
The foundation of the never-ending, incessant, creation of threads on BOD by False BODers like XavierSem, is their disbelief that un-baptized nice people are damned. They must find an answer to that disbelief, they are obsessed by this disbelief, and so they seek teachers according to their own desires. Here is that honest admission by the late Fr. Cekada R.I.P.:
Quote
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
(* I am not talking about a believer in the strict BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas, for that is a harmless theory. The few BODers who limit their belief to the catechumen of St. Thomas are rare, and never have I seen one start a thread, or write a book or article on the subject. Why? Because numerically speaking, it applies to no one, if compared to the billions who have perished since the time of the new covenant.)
The Objective
The objective of the false BODer is to send an un-baptized non-Catholic person to heaven:
1) without the sacrament of baptism
2) without the indelible mark
3) without the sacrament of penance
4) without being a member of the Body
5) without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity
6) even without any desire to be a Catholic, indeed, even while despising the Church, Christ, and the Trinity
All the points above are hurdles, which the False BODer is obsseed with overcoming and for which he seeks teachers according to his own desire.
-
Not sure I understand you correctly, Do you believe the original Latin is saying opposite of what is translated in Denzinger? IOW, you believe it says that "baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation"? Is that what you are saying?
It says that. However, it says anyone who says that is condemned ("anathema sit").
-
Yep, if the dogmas do not mean what they say, then whatever the BODers say means nothing. If I need an interpreter for dogma, then dogma is worthless.
Anyhow, they have a ton of hurdles to make besides that one point, and they'll do the same with those hurdles.
What are you going on about?
I am talking about precisely what it says.
-
What are you going on about?
You call one sentence "going on"? I do not need an interpreter for dogma.
What flavor of BODer are you?
The objective of the false BODer is to send an un-baptized non-Catholic person to heaven:
1) without the sacrament of baptism
2) without the indelible mark
3) without the sacrament of penance
4) without being a member of the Body
5) without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity
6) even without any desire to be a Catholic, indeed, even while despising the Church, Christ, and the Trinity
All the points above are hurdles, which the False BODer is obsseed with overcoming and for which he seeks teachers according to his own desire.
-
Ok. Again - I mentioned this earlier regarding "superfluous" - let's look at the actual language of Trent.
Canon 5 from Session VII on the sacraments says:
The translation of Denzinger that I am now looking at (edition 43 edited by Peter Hunermann), translates this as:
The key word here is "liberum," translated as "optional." As Trent says, this word liberum/optional is itself glossed, "hoc est non necessarium," or "that is, not necessary."
"Liberum" comes from "liber," and I believe is being used in the sense of "free or exempt from," - Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, līber (tufts.edu) (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=liber1)
As you can see from reading the passage "as written," "not necessary" is being equated with optional or free or voluntary, as if the sacrament of baptism can be dispensed with because of, e.g, the truth that justification can come from a "desire for the sacrament."
That is what is condemned by Trent "as written;" that is the type of "necessity" Trent speaks of baptism as having: it is not optional, or something one can forego as not necessary.
This is a discussion in search of truth, and I'm no Latinist, so I welcome correction or another view.
I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure what you're saying. I believe that ANY type of necessity would be contrasted with "optional".
While Trent doesn't explicitly explain the type of necessity (absolute vs. relative, of means vs. of precept), I believe the unanimity of theologians hold that it's "absolutely necessary by necessity of means". I believe that one of the Catechisms often cited in favor of BoD asserted that it was "absolutely" necessary.
Even if it's absolutely necessary by necessity of means, there's still the question of whether that necessity is maintained by the theory that one can receive Baptism in voto. After all, ...
the Sacrament is necessary to be able to have the votum to receive it and
the votum is necessary for justification
So by kindof like a "transitive" logical property, it would still be necessary even in a BoD scenario.
-
I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure what you're saying. I believe that ANY type of necessity would be contrasted with "optional".
Very good. So even "necessity" in the sense of St. Thomas in the Summa (see my post #106 above) would fit. Supports my point contra the argument - posed by Stubborn based on the text "as written" sans the commentary of theologians for example - that the necessity here is a sine qua non necessity.
While Trent doesn't explicitly explain the type of necessity (absolute vs. relative, of means vs. of precept), I believe the unanimity of theologians hold that it's "absolutely necessary by necessity of means". I believe that one of the Catechisms often cited in favor of BoD asserted that it was "absolutely" necessary.
Sure. I am exploring the type of necessity being spoken of by looking at the language of Trent itself. I think it's a dangerous stance for the Feeneyite position to look to theologians in support: the same theologians who speak of "necessity of means" regarding baptism virtually unanimously read Trent as speaking of a "desire" for baptism as sufficing for justification.
And as to necessity of means, I want to modify something I said earlier: the only time I am aware of the Magisterium using "necessity of means" is in on the issue of faith - namely, a decision of the Holy Office on the Trinity and I believe the incarnation as being necessary as a necessity of means for supernatural faith. Nothing in that regard from the Magisterium on baptism that I'm aware of.
Even if it's absolutely necessary by necessity of means, there's still the question of whether that necessity is maintained by the theory that one can receive Baptism in voto. After all, ...
the Sacrament is necessary to be able to have the votum to receive it and
the votum is necessary for justification
So by kindof like a "transitive" logical property, it would still be necessary even in a BoD scenario.
I agree, and have taken that position on this forum myself: for something to be desired it must exist (and be in the consciousness of the one desiring) to motivate the desire That is not part of my discussion with Stubborn.
My response in red.
Lad, I am interested in your response to the language in Trent regarding desire for baptism sufficing for justification if the sacrament "fieri non potest" (see post #111 above.
-
Speaking of exactly what Trent says, I was reading a discussion I was involved in on another site, and in the midst of the discussion (which I had forgotten) this bσɱbshell:
The phrase "fieri non potest" is the key. The translator above later revised his translation to read, "or if this is not possible." Thus:
I went back and checked the Latin, and indeed the Council of Trent in the text at issue in Session VI, Chapter 4 says "fieri non potest."
If this doesn't explode the argument that the "aut" in Trent is conjunctive - meaning that the water of baptism and the desire for it are both necessary, I don't know what does. Trent says that one may be justified from the curse of Adam's sin to a state of grace in Christ by water baptism or, "fieri non potest" ("if not possible"), the desire for baptism.
I'll wait to hear why this argument - BASED ON TRENT AS WRITTEN - doesn't hold water (no pun intended).
This deserves a massive facepalm. potest fieri is the main verb of the sentence, having translatio for its subject, and is not in some kind of subordinate clause like si fieri potest. Oh, for crying out loud. Talk about desperation (and ignorance of Latin) from a rabid BoDer. [Unless that was a typo, he also botched the very conjugation when citing it later.]
This shows the danger of what happens when you have an idiot (vis-a-vis the Latin language) with a pocket Latin dictionary.
-
This deserves a massive facepalm. potest fieri is the main verb of the sentence, having translatio for its subject, and is not in some kind of subordinate clause like si fieri potest. Oh, for crying out loud. Talk about desperation (and ignorance of Latin) from a rabid BoDer. [Unless that was a typo, he also botched the very conjugation when citing it later.]
This shows the danger of what happens when you have an idiot (vis-a-vis the Latin language) with a pocket Latin dictionary.
Lad,
So, if I understand you, what you are saying is that the translation is not possible ("fieri non potest") without . . . Correct?
-
Lad,
So, if I understand you, what you are saying is that the translation is not possible ("fieri non potest") without . . . Correct?
fieri non potest means "can not happen" or "is not possible without", etc. I actually like "is not possible without" because possibility implies "potency" or "potential".
So justification is not possible without ... [laver or the desire].
This person is trying to read it something like "SI potest fieri" (IF [the laver] cannot happen). Then where's the main verb in the sentence? This is the main verb, the subject of which is the translatio (if I recall) and not the lavacro.
-
I looked it up, quae quidem translatio is the subject of "is not possible without" or "cannot happen" or "is not possible to happen" (clunky but most literal).
So ... "which aforementioned transition [from injustice to justice] is not possible without ...".
-
See, here's my argument.
Why does Trent use the word "laver" instead of "the Sacrament of Baptism" or "the Sacrament"? It's because the word "laver" brings out the notion of water, and Trent immєdιαtely adduces as a proof text for this statement Our Lord's solemn teaching that one cannot be born again without "water AND the Holy Spirit." Trent just finished talking about how the Holy Spirit inspires all the predispositions for Baptism up to and including the votum.
So Trent is making an analogy here: LAVER (in Trent) is to Water (in Our Lord's teaching) what the VOTUM is to the Holy Spirit (in Our Lord's teaching).
To read it an either ... or would be like saying.
"John says we can't play baseball without a bat or a ball, since baseball requires a bat and a ball to play" and pretend that John means that we can play if we have one OR the other.
-
I looked it up, quae quidem translatio is the subject of "is not possible without" or "cannot happen" or "is not possible to happen" (clunky but most literal).
So ... "which aforementioned transition [from injustice to justice] is not possible without ...".
Got it. Thanks.
That makes sense - what the hell would all the fuss have been about all this time if it were that simple? :laugh1: :fryingpan:
-
Got it. Thanks.
That makes sense - what the hell would all the fuss have been about all this time if it were that simple? :laugh1: :fryingpan:
I mean, there is still the question of whether the "without X or Y" means in the sense of ...
"There can be no marriage without the bride or the groom" (this means you need both)
OR
"I cannot draw without a pen or a pencil" (this means I only need one).
I believe the quotation from Our Lord right after immєdιαtely disambiguates it to the first one above (water AND the Holy Spirit).
-
See, here's my argument.
Why does Trent use the word "laver" instead of "the Sacrament of Baptism" or "the Sacrament"? It's because the word "laver" brings out the notion of water, and Trent immєdιαtely adduces as a proof text for this statement Our Lord's solemn teaching that one cannot be born again without "water AND the Holy Spirit." Trent just finished talking about how the Holy Spirit inspires all the predispositions for Baptism up to and including the votum.
So Trent is making an analogy here: LAVER (in Trent) is to Water (in Our Lord's teaching) what the VOTUM is to the Holy Spirit (in Our Lord's teaching).
To read it an either ... or would be like saying.
"John says we can't play baseball without a bat or a ball, since baseball requires a bat and a ball to play" and pretend that John means that we can play if we have one OR the other.
What I said before, Lad, about your argument concerning the Roman Catechism, applies here as well, though I think a bit less so: reasonable and convincing.
However, as I said with reference to the RC, you have not only an overwhelming majority of theologians against you, but . . . is there even one who adopts your reading?
Now, I'm one who not only believes but knows (and we all should by now in light of V2 and its aftermath) that the hierarchy and the theologians can go off the rails - notwithstanding the officially sanctioned extravagant claims of indefectibility - and the vast majority of the sheep as well, but the utter solitude of your position is troubling even for a nonconforming pessimist like me. Yet recognizing you may be extremely lonely in the right is not disqualifying, albeit a bit troubling.
-
I mean, there is still the question of whether the "without X or Y" means in the sense of ...
"There can be no marriage without the bride or the groom" (this means you need both)
OR
"I cannot draw without a pen or a pencil" (this means I only need one).
I believe the quotation from Our Lord right after immєdιαtely disambiguates it to the first one above (water AND the Holy Spirit).
Sure . . . as it stands. But if the "fieri non potest" applied to the sacrament or laver, then the issue would have been closed.
-
Now, Father Feeney read it as without the laver or (at least) the will/intention for it, but he distinguishes between "justification" and "salvation."
That is also quite possible.
If you look at the paragraphs after, Trent lists the intention/proposal to receive Baptism among the "dispositions" or "preparations" for justification, and states that the justification which "follows" these preparations has for its instrumental cause the Sacrament of Baptism. This sounds as if the intention to receive Baptism does not result in justification but is merely a "preparation" for it through the Sacrament.
-
Now, Father Feeney read it as without the laver or (at least) the will/intention for it, but he distinguishes between "justification" and "salvation."
That is also quite possible.
If you look at the paragraphs after, Trent lists the intention/proposal to receive Baptism among the "dispositions" or "preparations" for justification, and states that the justification which "follows" these preparations has for its instrumental cause the Sacrament of Baptism. This sounds as if the intention to receive Baptism does not result in justification but is merely a "preparation" for it through the Sacrament.
Fr. Feeney did indeed. That's why I said that you were alone to my knowledge.
-
Sure . . . as it stands. But if the "fieri non potest" applied to the sacrament or laver, then the issue would have been closed.
Of course, but then there never would have been this debate in the first place. Heck, I myself would then certainly believe in pre-Baptismal justification myself ... except that I would continue to maintain that salvation (in the sense of enjoying the Beatific Vision) cannot happen without the Sacramental character, which is in fact the faculty that allows our human nature to see God as he is, since human beings lack that capacity by nature. This Sacramental character is in fact the SUPERNATURAL faculty required to see God as He is (like a supernatural sense, as it were) ... and it is also what allows God to see us as adopted children, taking on the imprint or character of Our Lord.
-
Fr. Feeney did indeed. That's why I said that you were alone to my knowledge.
Well, I'm certainly not alone ... in the sense that all Dimondites (vs. Feeneyites) hold this interpretation as well.
Honestly, taken on the surface you COULD read it either way. I recall that the Dimonds submitted the question to a Latin scholar Oxford, who replied that indeed it could be read either way unless there were some context to clarify the meaning.
See, if you believed in BoD to begin with, then you would be naturally inclined to read this the BoD way, but there's nothing in the text itself that forces that understanding of it.
-
By contrast, let's look at Trent's treatment of Confession a few paragraphs later. In this case, Trent makes it absolutely clear.
saltem in voto ("at least in intention")
AND
vel sacramento vel sacramenti voto ("by EITHER the Sacrament OR the intention for the Sacrament")
"vel" vs. "aut" for "or" has the sense of the two not being mutually exclusive, in other words, one presumes that in the case of the "sacrament" one ALSO has the "votum" rather than an "either ... or" sense. That's another issue I have with the BoD reading for Baptism. If you read it as "either ... or", then you're saying that one can be justified by the laver WITHOUT also having the "votum" ... which is actually explicitly condemned later in Trent and in the subsequent Catechism.
It would have been exceedingly simple for Trent to have used the exact same language where it came to Baptism, and there would have been no doubt whatsoever.
Trent could simply have said that "justification is not possible without the laver, at least in desire" OR ... "justification is not possible without [vel] the laver [vel] the votum" ... just like it did for Confession.
And the mere fact that it didn't use this language but DIFFERENT language in the Baptism section strongly suggests that the meaning is different there than in the case of Confession.
-
Well, I'm certainly not alone ... in the sense that all Dimondites (vs. Feeneyites) hold this interpretation as well.
Honestly, taken on the surface you COULD read it either way. I recall that the Dimonds submitted the question to a Latin scholar Oxford, who replied that indeed it could be read either way unless there were some context to clarify the meaning.
See, if you believed in BoD to begin with, then you would be naturally inclined to read this the BoD way, but there's nothing in the text itself that forces that understanding of it.
Well, broaden the field enough and even Pope Michael is not alone. :)
-
Well, broaden the field enough and even Pope Michael is not alone. :)
Not sure about that one. I think he lost his one seminarian (who posted here for a while).
-
More nonsense from Xavier. Taken in isolation, either interpretation is viable ... as the impartial Oxford Latin scholar agreed.
HE is the one undermining Church doctrine, not the Feeneyites.
-
Yes. The Dimondite interpretation is not authorized, and thus cannot be safely taught by Catholics, as discussed in another thread.
But anyway, since the discussion has come up, and at least some Catholics have fallen into the error of the Dimonds, here's the issue.
If someone says "I cannot eat noodles without a Spoon AND a FORK", its very plain that both are necessary. The Spoon and the Fork.
But rather if someone said, "I cannot eat without a Spoon or a Fork", and a Spoon is Sufficient, it's manifestly clear that a Fork also is.
And this is the real analogy here. Why? Because we know Baptism is Sufficient for Justification. Therefore, the Desire is also Sufficient.
The case goes: Either Baptism or its Desire is needed for justification. But Baptism is Sufficient. Therefore, the Desire also is Sufficient.
Go back to the analogy to understand why. If I cannot do something without A or B, but can do it with A, then I can do with B also.
Take any analogy and this will be very clear: Look at the bride and groom. A bride alone is not sufficient, and thus the analogy is wrong.
Because Baptism confers justification, as we already know from the Council, therefore, we legitimately infer the Desire also does so.
That's the issue. Take the other example given by Ladislaus: A bat and a ball for baseball. Firstly, saying "a bat or a ball" is incorrect.
Both are needed, so AND should be said. Secondly, a Bat alone is not sufficient for baseball, so "Bat" is not analogous to Baptism.
Baptism truly effects justification. Hence it would not be truly said "no can be justified without Baptism or X" unless X also did so.
Moreover, the Analogy with Penance shows what was meant. Trent says "Aut Eorum Voto" in its Canon to include the Desire of Penance.
This phrase is the exact plural of "Aut Eius Voto". This phrase shows that the Desire of Two Sacraments obtains the Grace of Justification
What can those two Sacraments be? Clearly only Baptism and Penance. Therefore, Baptism and Penance aut eorum voto are needed.
There is a third confirmation, which no one has answered. Trent says Baptism and Penance are necessary for salvation in the same way.
It is clear as crystal. Some of the persons here, in the past, have said things like "Only 1% of Catholics at most will be saved".
If someone really believed that, he should be out there handing Scapulars to other Catholics, so that much more can be saved.
But of course that rigorist opinion is not true. Some people want to believe they are the only remaining Catholics on earth.
That everyone else is going to be damned, including almost all other Catholics. A false and rigorist opinion that leads to this confusion.
Go, evangelize, call others to Baptism, hand out Scapulars, promote the Rosary, the Blessed Sacrament, Adoration and the Mass.
That is the way to save souls and increase the number of saved souls. Not by denying doctrine, attacking the Church, and accepting error.
Do you think people should place hope in baptism of desire?
-
Xavier is definitely LOT-lite. The resemblance to that (happily) former member is uncanny.
-
Xavier is definitely LOT-lite. The resemblance to that (happily) former member is uncanny.
Yep, either he is LoH or one of LoH's students.
-
"This faith conformable to Apostolic tradition catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism." Seems to indicate that whatever faith they have is different in the supernatural order than those who receive the sacrament.
"For the completion on the salutary doctrine on justification...it seemed proper to deal with the most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins (baptism), or having begun is increased (other sacraments), or being lost is restored (penance)."
It appears there is no true justification outside the sacraments, and none that is initial without the sacrament of baptism.
-
"This faith conformable to Apostolic tradition catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism." Seems to indicate that whatever faith they have is different in the supernatural order than those who receive the sacrament.
"For the completion on the salutary doctrine on justification...it seemed proper to deal with the most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins (baptism), or having begun is increased (other sacraments), or being lost is restored (penance)."
It appears there is no true justification outside the sacraments, and none that is initial without the sacrament of baptism.
Well said. What you speak of as the pre-Baptismal faith, is referred to by theologians as the fides initialis, a natural analogue to true supernatural faith, but still on the natural order. It is only with the Sacrament that the true supernatural virtue of faith is infused into the soul, which is why the catechumen is asking for faith at the beginning of the Baptismal Rite, despite already having a certain kind of faith that led to his requesting to receive the Sacrament. That is why the Church never considered catechumens to be among "the faithful" ... even if they said they agreed with or "believed" (naturally) everything that the Church teaches.
Catechumens are a bit tricky in that they are certainly not enemies of God, and can be considered to be in an analogous state as the Old Testament just, for whom whatever faith they had was also in an inchoate state, since they didn't know about what Our Lord would actually reveal. Catechumens have ONE of the characteristics of membership in the Church, in that they publicly PROFESS the faith. St. Robert Bellarmine held that the outward profession alone was the characteristic of membership in this regard (so that, for instance, secret heretics who did not have the supernatural faith were still regarded as members due to their outward profession).
-
Well said. What you speak of as the pre-Baptismal faith, is referred to by theologians as the fides initialis, a natural analogue to true supernatural faith, but still on the natural order. It is only with the Sacrament that the true supernatural virtue of faith is infused into the soul, which is why the catechumen is asking for faith at the beginning of the Baptismal Rite, despite already having a certain kind of faith that led to his requesting to receive the Sacrament. That is why the Church never considered catechumens to be among "the faithful" ... even if they said they agreed with or "believed" (naturally) everything that the Church teaches.
Catechumens are a bit tricky in that they are certainly not enemies of God, and can be considered to be in an analogous state as the Old Testament just, for whom whatever faith they had was also in an inchoate state, since they didn't know about what Our Lord would actually reveal. Catechumens have ONE of the characteristics of membership in the Church, in that they publicly PROFESS the faith. St. Robert Bellarmine held that the outward profession alone was the characteristic of membership in this regard (so that, for instance, secret heretics who did not have the supernatural faith were still regarded as members due to their outward profession).
Do you have any theologians references for what you said about the fides initialis for the catechumens? No one will believe me without references. Also, most BOD people say catechumens are a part of the faithful even though that is clearly not true. Thanks
-
Do you have any theologians references for what you said about the fides initialis for the catechumens? No one will believe me without references. Also, most BOD people say catechumens are a part of the faithful even though that is clearly not true. Thanks
Right, many claim they are the faithful, but they are not. It was actually Msgr. Fenton who wrote a nice piece in which he completely dispelled the notion that Catechumens are among the faithful. Let me look around for references to the fides initialis. I believe I ran across it in the Catholic Encyclopedia.