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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 102

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire  (Read 64568 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2023, 12:44:46 PM »
I found the quotes from St. Fulgentius (but not the source yet).
Quote
And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith, ... God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation ...

So this looks like a statement in favor of BoD, right?

Well, let's add the next part of the sentence:
Quote
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.

There's no reason the Catechism of Trent could not be read in this same way.  This "confession" or "desire" (or some equivalent subjective disposition) "avails" to salvation ... in so far as God will prevent such a one as this from dying without the Sacrament of Baptism.

Here's another similar passage from St. Fulgentius:
Quote
If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.

As others have pointed out, there's no statement in the Catechism to the effect that, "if such a one were to die before actually receiving the Sacrament, he would be saved."

It just says that their dispositions to be baptized prevent adults from being in the same danger as infants by delaying Baptism ... because God would make sure they received the Sacrament before they died.
Logged

Online Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2023, 10:14:57 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 15, 2023, 09:40:17 AM
You don't think Trent's catechism has been "updated" after a period of years?  If not, i'd say you'd be naive.
"The Catechism of The Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire", thus the title of this thread. Maybe I'm missing something on one of the links, but I can't see anywhere the justification for this statement. 

My Catechism of the Council of Trent (Imprimatur 1923) teaches it explicitly, as does this one from 1905 (during the pontificate of Pius X): The catechism of the Council of Trent : published by command of Pope Pius the fifth : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


"With regard adults who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, for instance, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out a different manner of proceeding... On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this sacrament hastily: She will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." (p124,125 of the text)

The words in this edition are different from mine, yet the meaning is identical. 
Logged

Online Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2023, 10:22:53 PM »
There is also from The Council of Trent, Session VII, Decree on The Sacraments, Canon IV:

"If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that without them, or the desire thereof men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2023, 04:33:17 AM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 15, 2023, 10:22:53 PM
There is also from The Council of Trent, Session VII, Decree on The Sacraments, Canon IV:

"If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that without them, or the desire thereof men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
The above is the Decree on the sacraments from the 7th session which covers all of the sacraments.

Before anything else, this canon states that the sacraments are necessary for salvation - disagree and you sin ("let him be anathema"). That's what it says. A BOD is not a sacrament, is therefore not salvific - per the above canon.
 
Next, it does *not* promise a desire for the sacrament of baptism justifies as BODers insist, rather, it clearly says without a desire thereof there is no justification.
 1) Trent says: "no sacrament + no desire = no justification/no salvation."
 2) BODers insist Trent says: "desire = justification/salvation."

In this canon, the "without the desire thereof" they are speaking of applies to the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharist - which coincides with the Church's teachings on Spiritual Communion and Perfect Contrition.

What they miss is the preceding session (6th), which is strictly about the sacrament of baptism when it states that justification cannot be effected "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof," which is, quite literally, condemning the idea of a BOD.
 
 For reasons known only to BODers, they read this to say "without the laver of regeneration or *without* the desire thereof," then apply idea #2 above into the mix. They then go so far as to insist that even Trent's catechism teaches a BOD.   
Logged

Online Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2023, 07:01:43 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on March 16, 2023, 04:33:17 AM
What they miss is the preceding session (6th), which is strictly about the sacrament of baptism when it states that justification cannot be effected "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof," which is, quite literally, condemning the idea of a BOD.
 
 For reasons known only to BODers, they read this to say "without the laver of regeneration or *without* the desire thereof," then apply idea #2 above into the mix. They then go so far as to insist that even Trent's catechism teaches a BOD. 
Council of Trent, Session VI, January 13, 1547, Decree on Justification:

"...By which words a description of the justification of the impious is indicated - as being a translation of that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, Our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".

Surely this affirms BOD and does not condemn it. The obvious sense of the words is not 'without the laver of regeneration and the desire', as you want to make it say, but one or the other, the laver of regeneration or the desire of the laver of regeneration. Otherwise, the Council would be saying that the baptism of a baby is not effected until it is old enough to also have the desire. Surely you can see that.

Also, why would you understand 'or the desire thereof', the exact same phrase, in the Session VII Decree on The Sacraments to mean 'either, or', and not 'both' as you do here? The reason you understood it to mean 'either, or' for that decree, is because that is the obvious sense, which you didn't even think to challenge for that particular statement, because it was not necessary to take it in the less obvious sense in order to preserve the doctrine you have a preconceived notion about. 

You cannot possibly believe in Baptism of Blood either if that is your interpretation. 

Do you really think the Council would use such an ambiguous phrase, given the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas, when the use of 'both, and', rather than 'or', would have removed all ambiguity?

Furthermore, the Catechism of the Council of Trent puts any doubt to rest with the passage that I quoted above.

And if there were any doubt remaining, surely St Alphonsus removes it forever with the identical interpretation of the Council of Trent, and even stating that the teaching is de fide:

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, 1696-1787 

Theologia Moralis, Lib.VI, Tract.II, Cap.I, no. 95-97: 


Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion 
of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.







Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 102
« previous next »