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 64609 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
That you for the response, I understand your point about sacrilegious baptism. But wouldn't an unconscious catechumen have implicit desire, considering the fact that he is a catechumen? I don't exactly have a dog in the fight, I was just looking for clarification about the interpretation of Trent that says the desire of the laver alone can justify.
Ah ok, yes, I would also say that by definition the catechumen desires the sacrament, even tho while he is unconscious he cannot desire it at that time. I think this is along the lines of Trent's catechism, which says if someone is insane but previous to their insanity desired the sacrament, they can be baptized.  
 

Ah ok, yes, I would also say that by definition the catechumen desires the sacrament, even tho while he is unconscious he cannot desire it at that time. I think this is along the lines of Trent's catechism, which says if someone is insane but previous to their insanity desired the sacrament, they can be baptized. 
Yes, I may have been muddling my words in my original comments so bear with me haha

These are the scenarios I was envisioning

Quote
Trent teaches that the laver of regeneration and the desire for the laver are necessary for justification

Laver and Desire = Justification (In the case of infants is the desire supplied? Is desire implied with unconscious catechumens?)
Laver but No Desire = No Justification (Such as your examples of sacrilegious baptisms)
No Laver but Desire = No Justification
or

Quote
Trent teaches that the laver of regeneration or at least the desire for the laver are necessary for justification

Laver and Desire = Justification
Laver but no Desire = No Justification(?)
No laver but Desire = Justification

So with the first interpretation, Trent is explicitly stating that with the laver, the desire for the laver is also necessary for justification. That makes sense to me, that no one can be justified without desiring it.  If I run up to a Muslim and quickly use the form of baptism with the proper matter, he isn't justified because he did not desire baptism. (That wouldn't even be a valid baptism, correct?)

With the second interpretation, the line from Trent is no longer explicitly saying that you need the laver with the desire for the laver to be justified. Is it implied that if you receive the laver, you must also have the desire to receive it in order to be justified?


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Yes, I may have been muddling my words in my original comments so bear with me haha

These are the scenarios I was envisioning
Quote
Trent teaches that the laver of regeneration and the desire for the laver are necessary for justification 

Laver and Desire = Justification (In the case of infants is the desire supplied? Is desire implied with unconscious catechumens?)
Laver but No Desire = No Justification (Such as your examples of sacrilegious baptisms)
No Laver but Desire = No Justification

or
Quote
Trent teaches that the laver of regeneration or at least the desire for the laver are necessary for justification

Laver and Desire = Justification
Laver but no Desire = No Justification
No laver but Desire = Justification

So with the first interpretation, Trent is explicitly stating that with the laver, the desire for the laver is also necessary for justification. That makes sense to me, that no one can be justified without desiring it.  If I run up to a Muslim and quickly baptize him, he isn't justified because he did not desire baptism.

With the second interpretation, the line from Trent is no longer explicitly saying that you need the laver with the desire for the laver to be justified. Is it implied that if you receive the laver, you must also have the desire to receive it in order to be justified?
Well yes, for adults the desire is necessary for justification, but Trent does not teach your second example, so not sure what to make of it.

See, the specific teachings are specifically worded in a negative tenor. Your examples are in the positive - which is the way BODers read the same teachings which only adds to their confusion. 

When Trent says justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or a desire for the sacrament, they are ruling out any possibility of justification without the sacrament of baptism. Whatever anyone else says to the contrary, Trent is clear. Again, if one thinks it is confusing, then what they need to do is realize that Trent concluded with "as it is written, unless a man....." so as to to cement the teaching and remove all doubt.

Offline OABrownson1876

  • Supporter
A number of years ago a Catholic buddy told me of  an actual case of a catechumen who was stricken and killed by a car during his procession into church to be baptized.  The BOD crowd might say, "Well, he went instantly to heaven because he desired it."  The other side might very well argue, "Well, perhaps he had impure motives in potentially receiving baptism and suffered God's vengeance."  I think the story was in American Ecclesiastical Review.

Someone in this thread argued that the Church would never have canonized St. Thomas if his writings contained theological error.  The point is - and has been alluded to several times in this thread - the collected works of St. Thomas is twenty-five volumes in Latin.  Most of St. Thomas' works have never been been translated into English; and, if I recall from my college days, sixty percent of St. Thomas has never been translated.  The whole idea that a voluminous doctor, even of the stature of St. Thomas, could spend his days writing many volumes, without ever falling into error, is ridiculous.  The same could be said of the any of the fathers.  Even St. Augustine somewhere in his Retractions said, "Formerly I have written that the Good Thief was not baptized, however, I do not know whether the Good Thief was baptized."  The very fact that St. Augustine would revisit his own works is proof enough that they might have contained errors.


Well yes, for adults the desire is necessary for justification, but Trent does not teach your second example, so not sure what to make of it.

See, the specific teachings are specifically worded in a negative tenor. Your examples are in the positive - which is the way BODers read the same teachings which only adds to their confusion. 

When Trent says justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or a desire for the sacrament, they are ruling out any possibility of justification without the sacrament of baptism. Whatever anyone else says to the contrary, Trent is clear. Again, if one thinks it is confusing, then what they need to do is realize that Trent concluded with "as it is written, unless a man....." so as to to cement the teaching and remove all doubt.
I see. My second example is what I took the pro-BOD interpretation to be. Thank you again for your responses, I do appreciate it