Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Priests who believe EENS  (Read 3327 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1128
  • Reputation: +315/-87
  • Gender: Male
Re: Priests who believe EENS
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2022, 11:04:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • The RC or Roman Catechism is the Catechism of the Council of Trent, do I have that correct? If so, that catechism does not say, nor ever even imply anywhere "that it is possible to be saved by a desire for the sacrament" neither does the Council of Trent say any such a thing.

    Can you please quote the lesson you're referring to from the catechism (PDF attached)? And if possible from the Council of Trent?

    "Nor even imply?"

    Here:

    Quote
    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

    It certainly at least implies - to put it midly - that one can be saved by a desire for baptism with repentance. If "it is impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters," that desire and repentance will "avail them to grace and righteousness."


    And what is the "danger as in the case of infants"?

    Here:

    Quote
    Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain 120 without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11857
    • Reputation: +4615/-738
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #16 on: January 20, 2022, 11:40:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • "Nor even imply?"

    Here:

    Quote
    On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

    It certainly at least implies - to put it midly - that one can be saved by a desire for baptism with repentance. If "it is impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters," that desire and repentance will "avail them to grace and righteousness."

    And what is the "danger as in the case of infants"?

    Here:
    Ok, the RC first off states there is no danger of death involved, if there were, then the adult must be be baptized asap like infants who are more prone shall we say, to die at any time. This is why for adults there is a delay, but not for infants. However, when there is a danger of death, read the very next chapter, do that and you will see the RC teaches that:

    Quote
    In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

    Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death,
    Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.
    This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one
    baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the
    faith.

    To continue with  the first part where it says: "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

    Grace and righteousness are attributes of the living, not the dead. Neither Trent nor the RC are talking about the attainment of salvation, which is an attribute of the dead, not the living.

    So yes, their intention etc. "will avail", which is to say will help, or aid them, and be of use toward grace and righteousness, which is justification, but it does not reward or even give them grace or righteousness, nor does it mean it will reward them salvation.

    So your concern of being opposed to the RC really has no basis.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30138
    • Reputation: +17685/-4438
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #17 on: January 20, 2022, 11:45:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've addressed the Roman Catechism passage.  I don't believe that it means what people claim.  It means that for those who have the genuine votum for Baptism, God will not allow them to pass away without the Sacrament.  It harkens back to a simlar passage from St. Fulgentius.

    St. Fulgentius mentioned a case of some young man about to die and said that is confession (aka profession of faith) wold avail for his salvation ... and then added ... since it preserved him in life until he could be baptized.  I believe that's the sense of Trent here.  That due to the strengh of one's votum to receive Baptism, God would pevent some circuмstance from getting in the way.  One problem is the translation of what I Latin means more "circuмstance" to an "accident" (which implies a fatal accident but doesn't have that same sense in Latin).

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #18 on: January 20, 2022, 12:03:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • It certainly at least implies - to put it midly - that one can be saved by a desire for baptism with repentance. If "it is impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters," that desire and repentance will "avail them to grace and righteousness."

    And what is the "danger as in the case of infants"?

    Here:

    Ok, the RC first off states there is no danger of death involved, if there were, then the adult must be be baptized asap like infants who are more prone shall we say, to die at any time. This is why for adults there is a delay, but not for infants. However, when there is a danger of death, read the very next chapter, do that and you will see the RC teaches that:

    To continue with  the first part where it says: "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

    Grace and righteousness are attributes of the living, not the dead. Neither Trent nor the RC are talking about the attainment of salvation, which is an attribute of the dead, not the living.

    So yes, their intention etc. "will avail", which is to say will help, or aid them, and be of use toward grace and righteousness, which is justification, but it does not reward or even give them grace or righteousness, nor does it mean it will reward them salvation.

    So your concern of being opposed to the RC really has no basis.

    It has a very good basis under a natural reading, especially considering the prior section about the danger to infants in delaying baptism. 

    As I said, what is that "danger": that, in case they die, there is no other remedy to salvation other than baptism. Again, look at the context regarding the infants, and consider that catechumen "are not attended with the same danger" (quoting the catechism):


    Quote
    Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain 120 without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

    Catechumens, who are capable of both desire for baptism and repentance (unlike infants), don't have that danger. In other words, they do have a means of salvation other than baptism if they were to die without the laver. 

    You will persist with your reading, and I will with mine, which of course I think is far stronger and the correct reading. 


    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #19 on: January 20, 2022, 12:07:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've addressed the Roman Catechism passage.  I don't believe that it means what people claim.  It means that for those who have the genuine votum for Baptism, God will not allow them to pass away without the Sacrament.  It harkens back to a simlar passage from St. Fulgentius.

    St. Fulgentius mentioned a case of some young man about to die and said that is confession (aka profession of faith) wold avail for his salvation ... and then added ... since it preserved him in life until he could be baptized.  I believe that's the sense of Trent here.  That due to the strengh of one's votum to receive Baptism, God would pevent some circuмstance from getting in the way.  One problem is the translation of what I Latin means more "circuмstance" to an "accident" (which implies a fatal accident but doesn't have that same sense in Latin).

    Ok. But the RC's language about the danger to infants is that "there is no other remedy except baptism" if they die ("the danger of death," as the RC says), and the case with catechumen implies there is not that danger because there is another remedy or means, and implicitly, in context and by way of comparison (and the comparison with infants is clearly invoked), if they would die.

    I think the context, as I said with Stubborn, supports my reading.
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)


    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11857
    • Reputation: +4615/-738
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #20 on: January 20, 2022, 12:09:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've addressed the Roman Catechism passage.  I don't believe that it means what people claim.  It means that for those who have the genuine votum for Baptism, God will not allow them to pass away without the Sacrament.  It harkens back to a simlar passage from St. Fulgentius.
    Why doesn't it mean just what it says?
    "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

    Because RC states plainly that there is no danger of death, there is no danger of death.

    It's not until the following chapter where the danger of death is present, and in that chapter the RC teaches to "baptize at once." When it comes to the danger of dying, the RC is explicit and neither mentions nor implies that there is any other option. 
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11857
    • Reputation: +4615/-738
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #21 on: January 20, 2022, 12:17:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • It has a very good basis under a natural reading, especially considering the prior section about the danger to infants in delaying baptism.

    As I said, what is that "danger": that, in case they die, there is no other remedy to salvation other than baptism. Again, look at the context regarding the infants, and consider that catechumen "are not attended with the same danger" (quoting the catechism):


    Catechumens, who are capable of both desire for baptism and repentance (unlike infants), don't have that danger. In other words, they do have a means of salvation other than baptism if they were to die without the laver.

    You will persist with your reading, and I will with mine, which of course I think is far stronger and the correct reading.
    The Church purposely defers the sacrament for adults for a very good reason - and it is not because should they suffer an accidental death their intentions will reward them salvation - which is taught exactly nowhere in the RC or Trent.

    Please read the rest of the chapter to see the reason for the delay in the baptism for adults...

    Quote
    Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular
    care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek
    Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that
    Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of
    the catechumens.

    Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to
    profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn
    ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the
    Sacrament.

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #22 on: January 20, 2022, 12:33:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church purposely defers the sacrament for adults for a very good reason - and it is not because should they suffer an accidental death their intentions will reward them salvation - which is taught exactly nowhere in the RC or Trent.

    Please read the rest of the chapter to see the reason for the delay in the baptism for adults...

    Who said the delay was because there wasn't the same danger? All the RC says is there isn't "the same danger" as with infants, not that it's the reason for the delay. And how is it not the same danger? Because baptism is not the only means for the catechumen. This should be obvious.

    The RC says, that for catechumen "this delay seems to be attended with some advantages." Of course there are advantages to the delay for catechumen. That has nothing to do with the issue. The advantages to the delay work because there's not "the same danger" to the catechumens as infants.

    Shhssshh.

    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)


    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11857
    • Reputation: +4615/-738
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #23 on: January 20, 2022, 12:49:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who said the delay was because there wasn't the same danger? All the RC says is there isn't "the same danger" as with infants, not that it's the reason for the delay. And how is it not the same danger? Because baptism is not the only means for the catechumen. This should be obvious.

    The RC says, that for catechumen "this delay seems to be attended with some advantages." Of course there are advantages to the delay for catechumen. That has nothing to do with the issue. The advantages to the delay work because there's not "the same danger" to the catechumens as infants.

    Shhssshh.
    You're making me crack up out loud over here! 

    Ok, you need to agree that there is no danger of death whatsoever, and also that the RC is not even implying that there even is that danger, HOWEVER, when there *is* that danger, they are to be "baptized at once." Supposing you agree, why do you suppose that is?

    COULD IT BE, now this is the question; could it be that "since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration..." just exactly "as it is written; "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of God"?

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Francis Xavier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 13
    • Reputation: +3/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #24 on: January 20, 2022, 01:03:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But the (non-Pelagian, non-heretical) BoDers do continue to maintain that the Sacrament is absolutely necessary for salvation.  What they say though is that the Sacrament is necessary in desire.  They say it's necessary to receve in voto even if not necessarily in re.  That's a faulty argument made by many of the Dimondite anti-BoDers  You can still say the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation even if you allow for the modality of receiving it in voto.  Trent itself teaches that the Sacrament of Confession is necessary to be restored to a state of grace after a post-Baptismal fall, but clearly holds that it can be received in voto.  About Confession Trent says, saltem in voto, "at least in desire".  Since the Church has tolerated this opinion and even made Doctors of the Church a couple of me who held that position, it would be rather presumptuous to hold that the opinion is not at least tenable.  I think it's wrong and mistaken, for reasons I have articulated elsewhere, but I don't hold that it's inherently harmful to the faith if understood as St. Thomas, St. Robert, and St. Alphonsus held it.
    Yeah, you made a good point, I admit my argument is faulty here.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #25 on: January 20, 2022, 01:04:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're making me crack up out loud over here! 

    Ok, you need to agree that there is no danger of death whatsoever, and also that the RC is not even implying that there even is that danger, HOWEVER, when there *is* that danger, they are to be "baptized at once." Supposing you agree, why do you suppose that is?

    COULD IT BE, now this is the question; could it be that "since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration..." just exactly "as it is written; "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of God"?

    There's a lot of cracking up going on here. :laugh1:

    Why would you baptize someone "at once" if they were in danger of death? That's easy. Why would one take any chances? If a thief broke into your house and you could confront him and win with a knife, why would you forego grabbing the gun that will give you the victory if you have at hand? That would be irresponsible and stupid. 

    Come on, Stubborn.

    Or I guess we could keep laughing.
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)


    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11857
    • Reputation: +4615/-738
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #26 on: January 20, 2022, 01:48:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There's a lot of cracking up going on here. :laugh1:

    Why would you baptize someone "at once" if they were in danger of death? That's easy. Why would one take any chances? If a thief broke into your house and you could confront him and win with a knife, why would you forego grabbing the gun that will give you the victory if you have at hand? That would be irresponsible and stupid. 

    Come on, Stubborn.

    Or I guess we could keep laughing.

    The RC tells you the reasons for not baptizing adults at once. I can tell you of a convert I knew who was baptized a Lutheran as a child, but upon hearing only the most basic of the basics of the faith, wanted to convert, and was desperate to be immediately baptized in the Catholic Church for fear of the previous baptism being invalid, sudden death and going to hell.

     In my mind that was a valid concern, but the Church does not look at it that way. The Church ONLY looks at it that way if there really is the danger of death. When it comes to the baptism of adults, the way the Church looks at it is taught in the RC, i.e they are in need of instruction, among other things.

    This is the key, this is what you are missing (I think)....
    You have to believe that there is no one, not one single person in the whole history of the world, who being sincere in their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, which made them  availed to grace and righteousness, that God will take before they get baptized.

    It is with faith that we understand that Almighty God provided you and me and all who've ever been baptized with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it, which means simply, that if God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it.

    The whole problem with a BOD is that it only works when the Divine Providence is altogether removed from the formula.

    If one can save themself by desiring the sacrament, then one can skip that idea and simply desire to ascend body and soul into heaven.




    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1128
    • Reputation: +315/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #27 on: January 20, 2022, 03:02:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The whole problem with a BOD is that it only works when the Divine Providence is altogether removed from the formula.


    I'm a pretty strict proponent of the Thomist/Augustinian school on Providence and Predestination - I've even started a thread defending that view -  so I'm not advocating for the RC position, merely accepting it. 

    I consider the RC trustworthy and even ordinary, universal magisterium, and I won't twist its language to come out a way I want it to, when it (to me) plainly reads as I've been arguing in this thread. 
    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1868
    • Reputation: +750/-1125
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #28 on: January 20, 2022, 03:18:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The RC contained errors which were corrected by Clement XIII. There's a foreword by Pope Clement XIII saying so (June 14, 1761).

    Clement says "gereinigt von den Fehlern, die es aus versehen der Bearbeiter in sich aufgenommen hat" (German edition). (cleansed of the errors which entered into it by mistake of the editors)

    There seems to be no guarantee that a Cathechism is free of errors.
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline LeDeg

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 657
    • Reputation: +418/-79
    • Gender: Male
    • I am responsible only to God and history.
    Re: Priests who believe EENS
    « Reply #29 on: January 20, 2022, 03:32:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The RC contained errors which were corrected by Clement XIII. There's a foreword by Pope Clement XIII saying so (June 14, 1761).

    Clement says "gereinigt von den Fehlern, die es aus versehen der Bearbeiter in sich aufgenommen hat" (German edition). (cleansed of the errors which entered into it by mistake of the editors)

    There seems to be no guarantee that a Cathechism is free of errors.
    Can you cite a source for this? That would be very helpful.
    "You must train harder than the enemy who is trying to kill you. You will get all the rest you need in the grave."- Leon Degrelle