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

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire  (Read 64668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #105 on: March 22, 2023, 02:48:30 PM »
Dishonest and idiotic strawman.  Theologians can be wrong about something without having been "incompetent dimwits".

St. Peter Canisius, a theologian who attended and spoke at the Council of Trent, published a Catechism afterwards that received broad approbation interpreted Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.
Thank you for your kind words.

If by "strawman" you mean incompetency isn't the only explanation, I agree.  I was thinking about those who maintain that Trent's decree on justification clearly teaches something other than BOD.  If that is what someone maintains, then the only explanations I can think of for Bellarmine, Liguori, et al. is incompetency or maliciousness.  Otherwise, a third explanation is that papal and conciliar decrees are not always so clear that they can't be misunderstood, and can even be misunderstood by the most competent and holiest theologians.

I've read St. Peter Canisius's catechism.  I've checked it again just now.  I don't see where he interprets Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.  Can you provide the quote or point out the section where he does?

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #106 on: March 22, 2023, 03:12:19 PM »
Quote
Though, again, it’s not just teaching BOD that would make Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, Cornelius a Lapide, et al., incompetent if they were wrong; it’s that they understood Trent’s decree on justification to be teaching BOD.  If this decree clearly does not teach BOD, as some modern lay people assert, then Bellarmine, Liguori, et al. grossly misunderstood something that should be clearly understood.  That means they were either incompetent or malicious
Here's where Bellarmine, Ligouri, etc were wrong, and it's not due to incompetence or maliciousness, but inexperience.  Not theological inexperience, nor lack of sanctity, nor lack of IQ...what they were missing is chaos, spiritual warfare, and human degeneracy.  They were missing the "real life" application of this BOD concept.

The early Church Fathers lived in times similar to ours.  Persecutions, heresies everywhere, antipopes, truth under constant attack.  +Bellarmine, +Aquinas, +Alphonsus lived in calmer times, when the Church was not ravaged by spiritual war, when people did NOT question the most basic of truths.  Sure, there were heresies of those days, but not to the extent of the early Church nor our times.

So, when +Bellarmine, etc were thinking of BOD, they did not (could not) envision a time when 95% of churchmen believed that Jєωs could be saved, as Jєωs.  Or that "all religions are pleasing to God".  In other words, their error was in not foreseeing/projecting out the conclusions of BOD, which have led to the heresies of universal salvation/implicit faith.  In their day, they were simply thinking of the "poor native indians".  They were not thinking of the horrors of V2, the coming one-world church and the false ecuмenism of our day.

These are the same people who "piously believed" that God would not allow the pope to fall into heresy.  Well, they were totally wrong.  God has allowed it.  And God has allowed Trent's "justification by desire" to turn into a replacement for baptism, which applies to anyone who "loves God sincerely".  They were naive.  They couldn't foresee the future.  It's not that they were dumb or malicious.  They were just unprepared for the 20th century and V2.  How could anyone predict this?  A crisis unparalleled in all of Church history.

If they could have foreseen the consequences of opening the BOD "pandora's box" and the heresies to which it would lead, they would've been much, much more cautious, precise and exact in their speculations and theories.


Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #107 on: March 22, 2023, 03:27:42 PM »
Here's where Bellarmine, Ligouri, etc were wrong, and it's not due to incompetence or maliciousness, but inexperience.  Not theological inexperience, nor lack of sanctity, nor lack of IQ...what they were missing is chaos, spiritual warfare, and human degeneracy.  They were missing the "real life" application of this BOD concept.

The early Church Fathers lived in times similar to ours.  Persecutions, heresies everywhere, antipopes, truth under constant attack.  +Bellarmine, +Aquinas, +Alphonsus lived in calmer times, when the Church was not ravaged by spiritual war, when people did NOT question the most basic of truths.  Sure, there were heresies of those days, but not to the extent of the early Church nor our times.

So, when +Bellarmine, etc were thinking of BOD, they did not (could not) envision a time when 95% of churchmen believed that Jєωs could be saved, as Jєωs.  Or that "all religions are pleasing to God".  In other words, their error was in not forseeing/projecting out the conclusions of BOD, which have led to the heresies of universal salvation/implicit faith.  In their day, they were simply thinking of the "poor native indians".  They were not thinking of the horrors of V2, the coming one-world church and the false ecuмenism of our day.

These are the same people who "piously believed" that God would not allow the pope to fall into heresy.  Well, they were totally wrong.  God has allowed it.  And God has allowed Trent's "justification by desire" to turn into a replacement for baptism, which applies to anyone who "loves God sincerely".  They were naive.  They couldn't foresee the future.  It's not that they were dumb or malicious.  They were just unprepared for the 20th century and V2.  How could anyone predict this?  A crisis unparalleled in all of Church history.
This seems to fall under the third category of explanations, that papal and conciliar decrees are not always so clear that they can't be misunderstood, and can even be misunderstood by the most competent and holiest theologians.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #108 on: March 22, 2023, 03:34:40 PM »
Quote
that papal and conciliar decrees are not always so clear that they can't be misunderstood, and can even be misunderstood by the most competent and holiest theologians.
The explanations of a council are not infallible.  The explanations of a council are not "decrees" or "doctrine".  Only the Canons/anathemas are infallible.

So, no, a council's decrees/canons/anathemas are doctrine and cannot be misunderstood but must be read literally and simply.  That's how they are written.

But, yes, a council's explanations can be misunderstood because these are not necessarily totally correct, or totally explained, or fully proven.  BOD is not a doctrine, or anathematized, or infallible.  It was part of an explanation and it was mentioned in passing.  There was not even 1 single sentence dedicated to the idea.  To say it was "unexplained" is a colossal understatement.  In the grand context of the council it was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it idea.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #109 on: March 22, 2023, 03:46:46 PM »
Dishonest and idiotic strawman.  Theologians can be wrong about something without having been "incompetent dimwits".

St. Peter Canisius, a theologian who attended and spoke at the Council of Trent, published a Catechism afterwards that received broad approbation interpreted Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.

Can you cite a text where St. Peter Canisius "ruled out" salvation for catechumens who died before baptism, which is what those who read the Catechism in favor of BOD argue?

I believe he said baptism is necessary for salvation, without mentioning BOD. So the argument that Canisius rejected BOD is an inference from silence. Why? Because even those who believe in BOD, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert, go down the list - all asserted  baptism as necessary for salvation.

I'll quote the Rheims annotation of  John 3:5 again:


Quote
5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.


Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.

If God "accepts them as baptized," and they are saved, then baptism retains its necessity.

I doubt you'd see any discussion by St. Peter Canisius where he discusses the issue of BOD and rejects it. Most likely you'll see a text or texts simply referring to the necessity of baptism, like supporters of BOD, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert, etc., do.