Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64346 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #345 on:** April 04, 2023, 05:12:00 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on April 04, 2023, 01:07:32 AM

The Council was rather teaching on the necessity of the sacrament for salvation - the sacrament (with all the necessary conditions implied) or at least the desire

This is the point I am now trying to understand.

The term forced baptism is actually a misnomer, because the performance of a forced baptism is not a Baptism at all; no sacrament is conferred.

Without the votum of the recipient, the Sacrament of Baptism is not actually conferred.

The laver of regeneration = the Sacrament of Baptism actually conferred.

In other words:

. . . this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the Sacrament of Baptism actually conferred or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).

The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: in English Translation, published by Ignatius Press,

Third Book On Things, CANONS 726–1551, FIRST PART—On Sacraments, Title 1:

Quote

Canon 737

§ 1. Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation and is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words.

The above is the 1917 Code of Cannon Law.

Now, here's the 1983 Code of Cannon Law:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docuмents/cic_lib4-cann834-878_en.html#TITLE_I.

Quote

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

For example, that is why Tanquerey states the following:

Manual Of Dogmatic Theology, 1959, by Tanquerey

Page 225:

https://archive.org/details/manualofdogmatic0002adta/page/224/mode/2up

Quote

After the promulgation of the Gospel, Baptism of water is necessary by a necessity of means in re or in desire.

"in re" meaning the Sacrament of Baptism actually conferred.

Stubborn · « **Reply #346 on:** April 04, 2023, 05:57:13 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 04, 2023, 05:12:00 AM

This is the point I am now trying to understand.

The term forced baptism is actually a misnomer, because the performance of a forced baptism is not a Baptism at all; no sacrament is conferred.

Without the votum of the recipient, the Sacrament of Baptism is not actually conferred.

The laver of regeneration = the Sacrament of Baptism actually conferred.

This is not so. *Justification* does *not* take place, yet the sacrament is actually conferred, but it is received sinfully. Which I believe is to say that the stain of Original sin is removed, but at the same time a mortal sin is committed by the recipient.

If Trent did not have the words; "or the desire thereof," clearly the doctrine would be that justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration." Period.

BODers believe that Trent immediately contradicts themselves with the words "or the desire thereof," then immediately contradicts themselves again by reaffirming the necessity of the sacrament in concluding with John 3:5.

Justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, which is to say no sacrament=no justification. There is no getting around this because that's what Trent says. As such, Trent must be seen as confirming justification cannot be effected with a BOD by the words "or the desire thereof."

To understand it any other way is to have a doctrine riddled with self contradictions.

trad123 · « **Reply #347 on:** April 04, 2023, 06:07:48 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 04, 2023, 05:57:13 AM

This is not so. *Justification* does *not* take place, yet the sacrament is actually conferred, but it is received sinfully. Which I believe is to say that the stain of Original sin is removed, but at the same time a mortal sin is committed by the recipient.

A source needs to be provided, showing that a forced baptism is a valid Baptism, and that Original Sin is removed and the character received in such circuмstances.

I agree that if it were valid, justification would not take place.

When I say a forced baptism, I mean the attempt to administer baptism to a person who does not consent to such a thing.

In such a circuмstance, I think the person who commits the mortal sin would be the person attempting to administer baptism, and not the person receiving.

Innocent III states otherwise in the letter I posted here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877636/#msg877636

Now, that letter isn't necessarily infallible, but it's a source that I was able to find. I've already tried searching through the Church Fathers and the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the material on the Papal Encyclicals website.

trad123 · « **Reply #348 on:** April 04, 2023, 06:44:54 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on April 04, 2023, 02:08:42 AM

Thank you. This is why I believe that Trent was saying you need BOTH the LAVER AND DESIRE. The term "or" is used because it's a negative statement.

The point is that I'm starting to agree with Plenus Venter, that the laver of regeneration is the Sacrament of Baptism, with all the necessary conditions implied.

trad123 · « **Reply #349 on:** April 04, 2023, 06:55:23 AM »

In other words, the laver of regeneration and the Sacrament of Baptism is one and the same thing.

A person attempting to administer a forced baptism will not actual confer the laver of regeneration, because the cooperation of the will of the recipient is a necessary condition to actually confer the sacrament.

A forced baptism does not have all the necessary conditions to constitute the Sacrament of Baptism.

When I posted the link to the thread earlier, about Father Kramer, the poster JoeZ had written the following:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/father-kramer-to-the-feeneyites/msg389281/#msg389281

Quote

Father Kramer is then, of necessity, arguing that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. When speaking of adults (because the referenced canon is concerning the baptism of the impious), if either the water or desire separate from each other is enough to save, making desire alone enough to save, then necessarily water alone saves despite the will.

The fundamental issue is the understanding of the term "laver of regeneration"

The water and the words spoken, by the person administering, but left apart from the desire of the recipient does not constitute the term "laver of regeneration"

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64346 times)

trad123

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

trad123

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

trad123

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

trad123

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