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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 102

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire  (Read 64555 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2023, 08:01:42 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on March 15, 2023, 07:32:03 AM
In other words, a justification without salvation ... just as Father Feeney held.



Are you really going to bring up the argument - now that we are hundreds of years post-Trent on justification - about justification without salvation again?

Of course it's possible to be justified without being saved: one does not know definitively regarding someone's salvation until they are dead.  Perhaps millions upon millions - likely so - have been justified and baptized and not saved. To say one can be justified without being saved is a smokescreen in this context.

The crux is, if one departs this life in a state of justification with the requisite desire/ repentance without receipt of the sacrament - and this is the issue the Catechism and DR annotators are addressing - can one be saved? The DR annotators clearly say yes. I say the Catechism does as well.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2023, 09:30:55 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on March 15, 2023, 08:01:42 AM
Are you really going to bring up the argument - now that we are hundreds of years post-Trent on justification - about justification without salvation again?

Think what you want ... and I don't want to debate this again here ... but the fact remains that St. Ambrose held that unbaptized martyrs were in a state of being washed but not crowned (into the Kingdom), and was speculating / hoping here that Valentinian could enter the same state or something like it by virtue of his piety / zeal / faith, etc.  That's been the piece that everyone has missed in the famous Valentinian quote.  Even St. Benedict Center had an article in which they felt St. Ambrose was contradicting himself ... because they did not notice the "crowned but not washed" distinction being made by St. Ambrose.

From the citation above:
Quote
Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.

Just as the poster bolded the last section, everyone only SEES the last section.  But they fail to notice the section before it --

NOT EVEN MARTYRS ARE CROWNED IF THEY ARE CATECHUMENS, FOR THYE ARE NOT CROWNED IF THEY ARE NOT INITIATED

So there's a state of being washed and of being crowned, and crowning is a reference to entering the Kingdom of Heaven (by way of the Sacramental character).
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2023, 09:33:05 AM »
Quote
I say the Catechism does as well.
Depends which catechism you read.  Older ones are much more orthodox.  Even the original Baltimore Catechism of the 1800s was anti-BOD.  It was later "updated".  The enemies of the Church started infiltrating the Church way back in the 1400s.  Let's not pretend that the devil didn't think of this until Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the 1700s.

The doctrine of EENS (and the flimsy, sentimental idea of BOD which is used to water-down EENS) has been under-attack ever since the post-Middle Ages when the heights of Catholicism started to decline.  It also coincided with the dawn of exploration of the Americas, when liberal clerics (the precursors to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) started questioning Christ's "hard line" in order to save the "poor, innocent indians" whom (they heretically argue) God didn't care about.

When the facts show that God worked miracles for those groups of indians who He knew would listen to the Faith, by sending saints to bi-locate and give them the Divine Truths.  These good-willed indians were few, and they followed the natural law.  And God gave them the truth, by way of miracles.  Which He promised.

The historical record shows that the vast majority of "poor, innocent indians" were anything but.  They were constantly at war, their culture revolved around seeking more and more territory, and they worshipped satan (some directly, many indirectly) through their medicine-man "witches" who supported and encouraged cannibalism, human sacrifice and other atrocities.

Then when missionaries came to preach the gospel, most tribes killed them, or attempted to.  Thus, God sent the devastating small pox virus to "wipe out" all those tribes who rejected His ministers.  Notice that the small pox did not kill any tribes that accepted the Faith. 
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2023, 09:36:47 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on March 15, 2023, 07:50:54 AM
Yes, I recall you posting something from St. Fulgentius that had a striking similarity in language. It'd be nice to see that quote again.

I'll try to find it again here.  Interestingly, the Council of Florence's EENS definition was almost a verbatim citation from St. Fulgentius.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2023, 09:37:31 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 15, 2023, 09:33:05 AM
Depends which catechism you read.  Older ones are much more orthodox.  Even the original Baltimore Catechism of the 1800s was anti-BOD.  It was later "updated".  The enemies of the Church started infiltrating the Church way back in the 1400s.  Let's not pretend that the devil didn't think of this until Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the 1700s.

The doctrine of EENS (and the flimsy, sentimental idea of BOD which is used to water-down EENS) has been under-attack ever since the post-Middle Ages when the heights of Catholicism started to decline.  It also coincided with the dawn of exploration of the Americas, when liberal clerics (the precursors to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) started questioning Christ's "hard line" in order to save the "poor, innocent indians" whom (they heretically argue) God didn't care about.

When the facts show that God worked miracles for those groups of indians who He knew would listen to the Faith, by sending saints to bi-locate and give them the Divine Truths.  These good-willed indians were few, and they followed the natural law.  And God gave them the truth, by way of miracles.  Which He promised.

The historical record shows that the vast majority of "poor, innocent indians" were anything but.  They were constantly at war, their culture revolved around seeking more and more territory, and they worshipped satan (some directly, many indirectly) through their medicine-man "witches" who supported and encouraged cannibalism, human sacrifice and other atrocities.

Then when missionaries came to preach the gospel, most tribes killed them, or attempted to.  Thus, God sent the devastating small pox virus to "wipe out" all those tribes who rejected His ministers.  Notice that the small pox did not kill any tribes that accepted the Faith.

Hi, Pax. I was specifically referring to the Catechism of Trent.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 102
« previous next »