Author Topic: Question for those who deny Baptism of desire (Read 8281 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #120 on:** June 20, 2014, 07:20:34 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Excellent points. I had brought up something related earlier in the thread. In Canon IV of the seventh session, the Fathers did not hesitate to use the word Sacraments (plural) of the New Law necessary for Salvation. Obviously when the Fathers use the word necessary, they do not mean absolutely necessary.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Obviously if they meant the sacraments were unnecessary they would have said so - just as you do.

Again, what exactly is it that makes you seek for loop holes? Why do you not accept and embrace what is clearly taught?

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Even the Feenyites know that the Sacraments Holy Communion and Penance are not absolutely necessary for Salvation. Neither is Water Baptism. Therefore just as the Sacraments of Holy Communion and Penance can be received through desire of them, so can Baptism be received through desire.

Well lets see, Trent said the sacraments are necessary unto salvation, you are saying that Trent said: "not really".

Please list in no particular order, which of the sacraments we do not need because they are not necessary unto salvation.

We know Matrimony is not absolutely necessary, nor is the reception of Holy Orders necessary for an individual's salvation- - - - there, I eliminated two for you, there are five sacraments left - please tell us which of the remaining 5 sacraments' we do not need to receive so can we eliminate them from being absolutely necessary unto salvation.

Let's just cut to the chase, forget the sacraments, we are talking about Salvation by desire. You want it, you got it!.............don't worry, be happy.........

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #121 on:** June 20, 2014, 08:40:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'm sorry, Nishant, but these "proofs" of yours are all downright stupid.

ONE: votum is a PREREQUISITE for receiving the Sacramental effect. So for instance with regard to Confession, Trent teaches that perfect contrition AND (at least) the votum are required to be returned to a state of justification, one of two prerequisites and not by itself sufficient to obtain the sacramental effect. It would be superfluous to mention "perfect contrition" if in fact this votum would suffice in isolation to receive the effect of the Sacrament.

We are talking about the Sacrament itself (Absolution by the Priest) or the desire to receive the Sacrament itself. Absolution by the Priest is not absolutely necessary to be returned to a state of justification. Neither is Water Baptism.

Quote

TWO: Trent lumps the Sacraments together, SOME of which are "required", some of which are not (depending upon one's state in life) ... as well as some of which can be had by votum and some which cannot. It treats the Sacraments in aggregate.

You are imagining things. The Fathers do not say that of the Sacraments necessary for salvation "some can be had by desire and some not." This is your own invention. The canon specifically "the Sacraments" and "them" plural and together. Either all that are necessary for salvation can be obtained actually or in desire (correct). Or all together must be actually received with desire (false). Not only do you change "or" to "and" which is a perversion of the Canon, but you further mangle it, by saying it only means "and" for Baptism, and not for Holy Communion and Penance.

Quote

THIRD: Trent itself teaches that Baptism and Penance differ greatly, and any metaphor between the two is just your own fantasy. Baptism is a character Sacrament and can no more be had by desire than one can obtain Holy Orders by desire.

You are the only one in a fantasy land here. You have basically rewritten the whole Canon in your mind to suit your own doctrine. In referring to the Sacraments necessary for salvation does the Canon read "them" or does it distinguish them one from another by name? Does it distinguish character Sacraments from non-character Sacraments? No. Also, Holy Orders is not necessary for salvation either in actuality or in desire for any one individual. Neither is Confirmation, Matrimony or Extreme Unction. Trent says Sacraments necessary for salvation. Because they mean the difference between Heaven and Hell for all eternity and the Church allows for desire when though no fault of the person they cannot be received in actuality.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #122 on:** June 20, 2014, 09:15:40 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Well lets see, Trent said the sacraments are necessary unto salvation, you are saying that Trent said: "not really".

Please list in no particular order, which of the sacraments we do not need because they are not necessary unto salvation.

We know Matrimony is not absolutely necessary, nor is the reception of Holy Orders necessary for an individual's salvation- - - - there, I eliminated two for you, there are five sacraments left - please tell us which of the remaining 5 sacraments' we do not need to receive so can we eliminate them from being absolutely necessary unto salvation.

The Canon says that none of the Sacraments are absolutely necessary. It says that the Sacraments necessary for salvation can received through desire. So maybe you would like to rephrase your question. Or you can list the Sacraments necessary. Remember there is more than one, and you've already eliminated two. It's really not that hard.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #123 on:** June 20, 2014, 10:10:23 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Neither is Water Baptism.

Gratuitous assertion without proof.

Quote

TWO: Trent lumps the Sacraments together, SOME of which are "required", some of which are not (depending upon one's state in life) ... as well as some of which can be had by votum and some which cannot. It treats the Sacraments in aggregate.

Quote

You are imagining things. The Fathers do not say that of the Sacraments necessary for salvation "some can be had by desire and some not." This is your own invention. The canon specifically "the Sacraments" and "them" plural and together. Either all that are necessary for salvation can be obtained actually or in desire (correct). Or all together must be actually received with desire (false). Not only do you change "or" to "and" which is a perversion of the Canon, but you further mangle it, by saying it only means "and" for Baptism, and not for Holy Communion and Penance.

That's precisely the point, the SacramentS. See the S at the end? So, for instance, the Sacrament of Confession is necessary for salvation in the case of those who have fallen into grave sin after Baptism, and this one can be had in desire. That's why Trent says that they AS A WHOLE as necessary for salvation, but not every one, depending on the circuмstances, and in some cases by desire.

Quote

You are the only one in a fantasy land here. You have basically rewritten the whole Canon in your mind to suit your own doctrine. In referring to the Sacraments necessary for salvation does the Canon read "them" or does it distinguish them one from another by name? Does it distinguish character Sacraments from non-character Sacraments? No. Also, Holy Orders is not necessary for salvation either in actuality or in desire for any one individual. Neither is Confirmation, Matrimony or Extreme Unction. Trent says Sacraments necessary for salvation. Because they mean the difference between Heaven and Hell for all eternity and the Church allows for desire when though no fault of the person they cannot be received in actuality.

I've rewritten nothing. Nishant made the analogy between Baptism and Confession, but the two are DIFFERENT Sacraments, as taught by Trent itself, and what's true of one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

Your refusal to accept the dogma EENS has impaired your intellectual faculties as well.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #124 on:** June 20, 2014, 10:11:27 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

It says that the Sacraments necessary for salvation can received through desire.

No. It doesn't.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #125 on:** June 20, 2014, 11:11:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

That's precisely the point, the SacramentS. See the S at the end? So, for instance, the Sacrament of Confession is necessary for salvation in the case of those who have fallen into grave sin after Baptism, and this one can be had in desire. That's why Trent says that they AS A WHOLE as necessary for salvation, but not every one, depending on the circuмstances, and in some cases by desire.

As I said, you are rewriting the Canon in your own mind. The Canon does not say of the Sacraments necessary for salvation, "this one" or "in some cases by desire". It says plainly "them". They can be had either in actuality or in desire.

Nishant · « **Reply #126 on:** June 21, 2014, 07:46:54 AM »

No, Ladislaus, you are just wrong when you say voto refers to a simple prerequisite, as even a very brief glance at the comparable texts for penance and the Eucharist would show you. Voto always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire.

Trent clearly teaches that the sacramental effect of confession can be received in desire, and it uses voto precisely to teach the way in which this reception is effected. You are right that penance and baptism differ in various ways, but you are wrong that they both cannot be received in voto, and contradicted by Trent on that. They were both instituted by the remission of sins and they are therefore necessary for salvation, unlike Holy Orders or Confirmation, and for that reason God has ordained that they can be received in desire when it is perfected by charity and contrition.

We've seen the Council texts before in detail in the original Latin, and it's very clear in all and each case that three sacraments - baptism, penance and the Eucharist - according to the mind of the Council Fathers and the Church can be received in voto. Voto never refers to a mere disposition or a prerequisite as you erroneously maintain but to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire as the below makes very plain.

Quote from: Penance

"verum etiam eorundem sacramentalem confessionem saltem in voto ... non quidem pro pœna æterna, quæ vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto una cuм culpa remittitur" (but also the sacramental confession of the said sins —at least in desire ... not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament)

Again, voto always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire. It never refers to a prerequisite as you erroneously claim.

Quote from: Eucharist

"qui voto propositum illum cœlestem panem edentes ... "those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread"

Again, this referes to the reception of the Eucharist in desire. It doesn't mean as you would erroneously read it, to be a disposition or prerequisite to receiving the Eucharist in re properly.

Quote from: Baptism

"sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto," ... "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof"

This is a clear proof that all the authorities are right about Trent and your novel interpretation of it is mistaken and should be revised. The sacramental effect of baptism can be received in voto otherwise Trent would never have used voto to describe it. In re and in voto are well known concepts in theology and refer to very specific effects.

Quote from: Trent

And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

Major: Penance is necessary in fact or in desire (Trent, conceded by Feeneyites)
Minor: Penance is necessary as baptism itself is necessary (Trent, above)
Conclusion: Therefore baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire.

You can attack and deride this all you want, but it stands as the teaching of Trent which you do not accept. This of course is the Church's own understanding expressed in Her canons (737) "Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary for the salvation of all ... "

You've not addressed the below either, from your earlier reply to point 2, I gather that you didn't recall the canon I was speaking of specifically spoke of justification,

Quote

Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novæ legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci; licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: anathema sit.

In virtue of this condemnation, Trent is clearly teaching here that the sacraments or the desire for them, for more than one sacrament and in the plural, effects very specifically the grace of justification. And that proves that at least two sacraments received in voto effect justification.

Stubborn · « **Reply #127 on:** June 22, 2014, 04:34:48 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

No, Ladislaus, you are just wrong when you say voto refers to a simple prerequisite, as even a very brief glance at the comparable texts for penance and the Eucharist would show you. Voto always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire.

Trent clearly teaches that the sacramental effect of confession can be received in desire, and it uses voto precisely to teach the way in which this reception is effected. You are right that penance and baptism differ in various ways, but you are wrong that they both cannot be received in voto, and contradicted by Trent on that. They were both instituted by the remission of sins and they are therefore necessary for salvation, unlike Holy Orders or Confirmation, and for that reason God has ordained that they can be received in desire when it is perfected by charity and contrition.

You make reception of the sacrament optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation - per Trent, you are anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Lying NSAAers continue to reject the clear infallible teaching in order to make reception of the sacrament an option. After all this time we must presume NSAAers know they are doing this, we cannot assume that they are merely wrong - which makes them liars.

Nishant · « **Reply #128 on:** June 22, 2014, 05:59:57 AM »

As explained to you many times, baptism is not optional because baptism (in re or in voto) is necessary for justification. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem. And no one can be saved without being justified. After justification, nothing else is necessary for salvation other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, as should be obvious to all.

But your heterodox thesis that opposes it, Stubborn, that a man who dies justified will not go to heaven is borderline heretical. I've read that chapter many times, I suggest you read it again. It plainly says that in all the justified, whether they have preserved the grace received uninterrupted or recovered it does not matter, we must believe that nothing else is required for salvation other than that they depart in grace. So your thesis is not only heterodox it is frankly absurd.

Do you even understand what justification is? Answer this - is a man who is justified outside or inside the Church?

JoeZ · « **Reply #129 on:** June 22, 2014, 07:50:04 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

As explained to you many times, baptism is not optional because baptism (in re or in voto) is necessary for justification. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem. And no one can be saved without being justified. After justification, nothing else is necessary for salvation other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, as should be obvious to all.

But your heterodox thesis that opposes it, Stubborn, that a man who dies justified will not go to heaven is borderline heretical. I've read that chapter many times, I suggest you read it again. It plainly says that in all the justified, whether they have preserved the grace received uninterrupted or recovered it does not matter, we must believe that nothing else is required for salvation other than that they depart in grace. So your thesis is not only heterodox it is frankly absurd.

Do you even understand what justification is? Answer this - is a man who is justified outside or inside the Church?

If I may,

Trent
Session 6
CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.

"But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins."
My emphasis added.

Major:Only the baptised are justified.
Minor:Baptism is entry into the Church.
Conclusion: Only members of the Church can be justified.

Please advise and correct me if I'm wrong. Thx.

God bless,
JoeZ

Stubborn · « **Reply #130 on:** June 24, 2014, 05:55:58 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

As explained to you many times, baptism is not optional because baptism (in re or in voto) is necessary for justification. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem. And no one can be saved without being justified. After justification, nothing else is necessary for salvation other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, as should be obvious to all.

But your heterodox thesis that opposes it, Stubborn, that a man who dies justified will not go to heaven is borderline heretical. I've read that chapter many times, I suggest you read it again. It plainly says that in all the justified, whether they have preserved the grace received uninterrupted or recovered it does not matter, we must believe that nothing else is required for salvation other than that they depart in grace. So your thesis is not only heterodox it is frankly absurd.

Do you even understand what justification is? Answer this - is a man who is justified outside or inside the Church?

First off, you NSAAers equate the desire with the sacrament - which is in direct contradiction of the above canon and for you, by now is a mortal sin. You can not plead ignorance after all that has been written here on CI for you.

You must accept the canon WITHOUT EXCEPTION - every time you add the exception of "(in re or in voto)" you are making an exception which is of your own invention. You add the exception to the rule because IT IS NOT IN THE CANONS ANY WHERE.

Can we agree with that fact?

Next, "voto"/ "votom" is the BAPTISMAL VOW - ever heard of it?

"Voto" is not some vague desire or implicit or explicit desire or otherwise a good intention - it is the catechumen proving to the Church *the only way he can* by explicitly vowing ALOUD BEFORE ACTUALLY RECEIVING the sacrament that he wants to be baptized and promises to accept the requirements of the Church - OR HE CANNOT BE BAPTIZED.

As Trent's catechism teaches the Church cannot be mistaken here by administering the sacrament to one who is not willing to actually receive it - SHE REQUIRES THE VOW EVEN THO YOU COULDN'T CARE LESS.

That's right, if the catechumen does not vow loudly, explicitly and with the purpose of willing to be baptized, the Church will NOT baptize that catechumen.

You NSAAers make jokes of the Baptismal Vows, insisting the catechumen has no more need for those vows than they do for the actual sacrament - you claim one can be saved outside the Church because they had some vague desire which brought them into the Church before they died via an accident and that the Church, of all things, teaches this garbage - if that's not modernists novus ordo crap than please, TELL ME WHAT IS?

You NSAAer sacrament despisers are obsessed with rewarding salvation without the sacraments - lying hypocrites, every last one of you.

Cantarella · « **Reply #131 on:** June 24, 2014, 11:38:14 AM »

Quote

After justification, nothing else is necessary for salvation other than perseverance in the grace and justice received, as should be obvious to all.

The Council of Trent never taught "salvation by justification alone". That is a novelty coming from the BOD adherents to allow salvation for the invincible ignorant via last minute BOD.

A justified soul cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments. The sacraments are necessary for salvation. That is infallible.

Quote from: Trent

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

No Pope, Council, or theologian says BOD is a sacrament. Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that BOD incorporates one into the Catholic Church.

Justification alone is not sufficient to attain salvation. Even if BOD by implicit desire was a remote possibility, fact is, it is not a known reality on earth, so everyone is still bound to what God has divinely revealed to humankind through the Holy Catholic Church infallible dogma so everyone needs to convert into the Church for salvation and there are no exceptions. Therefore justification by implicit desire is actually irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the EESN dogma, which is to be taken as written. The partisans of error have obsessed with the theory of BOD only as the loophole for salvation by implicit desire of non-Catholics, but BOD as taught and understood by the Church (this is for pious catechumens under certain requirements only) is actually irrelevant to EENS.

There is no known case of implicit desire providing justification or salvation. Humans are still obliged to God's revelation: Every soul needs the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation. Everyone needs to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.

Cantarella · « **Reply #132 on:** June 24, 2014, 11:47:56 AM »

From the other thread:

"Invincible ignorance" via implicit desire (justification alone) is a modern error coming from the modernist liberal interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The error was carried over into Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16, which is interpreted by the liberals as invincible ignorance being an exception to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

To this day, the factual error still has not been solemnly condemned. An even "traditionalists" continue blindly adhering to it. At this point when the modernist heresy has spread this far, nothing short of an infallible pronouncement on the matter by the Roman Pontiff can put an end to these heretical modern teachings.

Most traditionalist orders assume that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance is a de fide teaching, an explicit exception to the EENS dogma, but this is not so. The novel and heretical error has been, since the Letter of 49, carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Cushing and the American Jesuits, placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner, supported by the pro-Mason Catholics, and sadly misinterpreted and spread across the whole globe, as part of the modernist liberal agenda.