Author Topic: Pre-Baptismal Justification (for those who do not believe in BoD) (Read 9390 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #45 on:** March 01, 2021, 12:29:01 PM »

Quote

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #46 on:** March 01, 2021, 12:32:34 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 01, 2021, 12:29:01 PM

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".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** March 01, 2021, 12:46:40 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 01, 2021, 12:32:34 PM

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.

gemmarose · « **Reply #48 on:** March 01, 2021, 03:29:59 PM »

Ladislaus

Pre-Baptismal Justification (for those who do not believe in BoD)
« on: February 19, 2021, 11:53:08 AM »

Ladislaus

Pre-Baptismal Justification (for those who do not believe in BoD)
« 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..

Tradman · « **Reply #49 on:** March 01, 2021, 03:38:30 PM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #50 on:** March 01, 2021, 04:14:02 PM »

Quote from: gemmarose on March 01, 2021, 03:29:59 PM

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.

gemmarose · « **Reply #51 on:** March 01, 2021, 04:19:30 PM »

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.

gemmarose · « **Reply #52 on:** March 01, 2021, 04:35:49 PM »

Just to let you know, friarminor is NOT associated with mhfm. Friarminor has been evangelizing against VII & BOD before they had their website.

JoeZ · « **Reply #53 on:** March 01, 2021, 06:13:44 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on March 01, 2021, 09:52:22 AM

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.

JoeZ · « **Reply #54 on:** March 01, 2021, 06:55:46 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 01, 2021, 04:50:09 AM

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

JoeZ · « **Reply #55 on:** March 01, 2021, 06:56:34 PM »

Sorry for the serious thread derail.

Emile · « **Reply #56 on:** March 01, 2021, 10:44:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 01, 2021, 12:46:40 PM

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

Stanley N · « **Reply #57 on:** March 01, 2021, 11:20:27 PM »

Quote from: JoeZ on March 01, 2021, 06:13:44 PM

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.

Quote

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?

Stubborn · « **Reply #58 on:** March 02, 2021, 04:52:50 AM »

Quote from: JoeZ on March 01, 2021, 06:55:46 PM

Quote
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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #59 on:** March 02, 2021, 07:24:48 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on March 02, 2021, 07:03:23 AM

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."

Poll

Do you believe that there can be justification before actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism?