Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64475 times)

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #205 on:** March 25, 2023, 05:50:45 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 25, 2023, 05:42:30 AM

So believing all of the above, why go on and on about a BOD, which wholly eliminates God's providence in the matter? "Without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

Thanks Stubborn. But here's the point. I don't. The Fathers, Doctors, theologians, theology manuals and Catholic doctrinal texts do.

Stubborn · « **Reply #206 on:** March 25, 2023, 06:18:00 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 25, 2023, 05:50:45 AM

Thanks Stubborn. But here's the point. I don't. The Fathers, Doctors, theologians, theology manuals and Catholic doctrinal texts do.

You don't believe in a BOD or God's Providence in the matter? I presume you don't believe in a BOD.

That the Fathers, catechisms etc. teach it while de fide teachings of the Church teach contrary only serves to give purpose for the Church, to have the final word in all things always.

When some idea or teaching does not 100% agree with *all* of her doctrines, it's out of place or in some way contrary, then that idea or teaching is not one of her doctrines no matter who teaches it - even if taught by "an angel from heaven" as St. Paul tells us.

I like how Fr. Wathen put it in a sermon about NO heretics, had nothing to do with a BOD but I like the way he puts it......

"...All of you know very well, what God has revealed both in the Old Testament and through Christ and His Apostles, is one doctrine. Not only does it mean one thing, but it is a single, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity.

Therefore, anyone who in any way teaches contrary to any one of it’s doctrines, any part of this holy deposit, violates it’s holiness and of course the truth of God. And if anyone comes forth and presents a doctrine contrary to it, he necessarily rouses the ire of Almighty God because he substitutes his puny human ideas and preferences to the holiness of the Divine Revelation..."

DecemRationis · « **Reply #207 on:** March 25, 2023, 09:33:18 AM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on March 24, 2023, 01:50:37 PM

For anyone to presume that a sacrament can exist in voto is, in reality, the denial of the definition of the term sacrament, which is, 'a sensible sign, instituted by Christ, which gives sanctifying grace.' Just imagine a man receiving the graces of Marriage because he had a 'votum' to receive marriage. The whole idea is theologically ridiculous. None of the sacraments can be had by desire, and the only remote example which comes to mind is making an act of perfect contrition in place of sacramental confession, which supplies the grace in place of the sacrament. But to my mind the Church has never defined "perfect contrition," but theologians have spoken of it. But "perfect contrition" presumes that one has been previously sacramentally baptized.

Brownson1876, you should read Brownson, whom I quoted in reply #141. He wrote that in 1847. Before he saw the "1876" light that you're shining here?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #208 on:** March 25, 2023, 09:39:22 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 24, 2023, 01:35:32 PM

Another serious problem with the BoDer rendering.

Corollary to your reading is that justification CAN happen WITHOUT the laver, without the Sacrament. That would be heretical by Trent's own condemnation. It would be one thing to say that an individual can receive the Sacrament in voto and quite another (heretical) thing to say that justification (and therefore salvation) can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament.

So Trent is implying the same heresy that it elsewhere condemns?

My reading? We're arguing about catechumen and whether they can be justified without receiving the sacrament per the Catechism of Trent. They desire the sacrament.

Straw manning again? You must be a hay farmer.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #209 on:** March 25, 2023, 09:43:26 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 25, 2023, 09:39:22 AM

My reading? We're arguing about catechumen and whether they can be justified without receiving the sacrament per the Catechism of Trent. They desire the sacrament.

Straw manning again? You must be a hay farmer.

What are you babbling about?

I clearly used the expression "BoDer rendering", by which I was referring to one of the two possible readings of "without the laver or the votum". I started by saying this "without A or B" can be interpreted and read two ways, one being the BoDer reading, the other the non-BoD reading. Nowhere did I mention YOU, as in "MY" reading anywhere in the passage you quoted.

And your nonsense about "receiving" has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

With the BoDer reading, the logical corollary is that someone CAN be justified WITHOUT the laver, and the formulation that one can be justified / saved WITHOUT the Sacrament is condemned as heretical by the same Council. BoDer reading would have Trent implicitly teaching the same heresy they're condemning. Even in a BoD scenario, if you believe in it, the justification DOES NOT AND CANNOT happen WITHOUT the laver. That's heresy. In BoD, it's still the laver that must remain the instrumental cause of justification, received in voto. So in no sense would justification take place WITHOUT the laver.

This is actually a smoking-gun argument that the BoDer reading of the contested passage in Trent is clearly wrong.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64475 times)

Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Stubborn

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

DecemRationis

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

DecemRationis

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire