CHAPTER VI.

The manner of Preparation.

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
-------------

I thought my previous answer would be obvious enough. The quote above from the Council of Trent does not mention belief (explicit or implicit) in "the Holy Trinty" or in "the Incarnation." So, according the the Fathers of the Council of Trent, belief in those two things would not be necessary for "justification." On that question, I would not dare to contradict Trent.

I would just like to point out the errors in logic of Angelus' 2 sentences, in red, above.  He's saying that Trent didn't say belief in the Trinity/Incarnation is necessary for justification.  But the entire Chapter VI paragraph is full of words/phrases which reference these 2 doctrines.  (See words in bold).

1.  ...through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.
2.  Gift of the Holy Ghost
3.  Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

If one is justified by the belief in the redemption of Christ, then one must also understand who Christ is, which means they have to understand Adam/Eve/Genesis, which means they know what Original Sin is, which means they understand the need of redemption from sin.  And if they need a redeemer, then they know about Jesus' birth (i.e. Incarnation) and that He is God and there are 3 persons in God (i.e. Trinity), of which Baptism gives us the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is grace.

All of this is implicit in understanding the above Chapter VI paragraph.  So, yes, EXPLICIT belief in the Incarnation/Redemption/Trinity is required for Baptism/Justification.  This is beyond question.

The fact that Angelus says that Trent "does not mention" this requirement, shows he's "missing the forest for the trees" and does not understand a holistic approach to Trent, nor the Faith.

And even if Trent did teach BofD as salvific, then why cannot the other sacraments be had by desire?  Confirmation by desire, Marriage by desire, Priesthood by desire.  Were the fathers at Trent being biased by picking out Baptism among the other sacraments? I often hear "God is not bound by the sacraments," but understood rightly, He is bound to the sacraments.  Two men cannot marry, an Oreo cookie cannot be consecrated, ad naseam.  Or is it really, that because I am so liberal, I need to find some way to get that poor ignorant native who lives next door to me, with his internet and Hot Pockets, into heaven?  

... why cannot the other sacraments be had by desire?  Confirmation by desire, Marriage by desire, Priesthood by desire.

Well, marriage can be confected by votum.  In fact, the votum is the essential component there.

Nevertheless with the other two, Confirmation and Priesthood, the answer is apparent.  These are the "character" Sacraments, where the Sacramental effect is inextricable from the character that's conferred.  Baptism is also a character Sacrament, and there's an effect of the Sacrament that's missing in a BoD scenario.  BoD reduces it to a triviality, a non-repeatability marker, and a badge of sorts that some people in Heaven have and others don't.  But what does it actually DO?  What EFFECT does it have?  According to BoD theory, pretty much nothing.

But, no, the Church Fathers viewed the "seal" or the "crown" (their terms for the character) as essential to permit entry into the Kingdom, to become adopted children of God the Father, to gain entry into the Royal Family of the Holy Trinity.  It's like Our Lord's Divine DNA, as it were, imprinted upon the human being to cause God to recognize the person as if he were His son, an adopted son, but a son nonetheless.  Church Fathers taught that God became man to make men gods.  This was no hyperbole.  They meant it.  When receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, we take on a divine character, the characteristics of God, God the Son, and become adopted family members of the Holy Trinity.  Human nature also lacks the capacity to see God as He is, God's Face, as it were, the supernatural vision of God, and the character also endows the soul with this power or this capability or this faculty ... just as the Priesthood and Confirmation endow men with other types of powers and capabilities.

BoD theory guts the importance of the Sacramental character, and I'd be more amenable to BoD theory that held we receive the character of Baptism or, as Nishant came to accept, for those God wishes to save, He administers the Sacrament via His angels.  It would take but a drop of water and a moment for the angels to confer the Sacrament of Baptism.  Who can prove that God does not do this?  In fact, this is what St. Cyprian thought was happening with BoB, that the angels pronounced the words (the form) and that blood could supply for water.  Alternatively, the angels could bring some water as well.  This is why St. Cyprian, the first to speak of BoB, called it the Sacrament.  Later commentators, not understanding what he meant, wrongly concluded that this was an erroneous statement, unaware of what he thought was taking place in BoB, that it was not some replacement for the Sacrament, but an alternative mode of administering it.

What's going on in Acts 10:47 as pertains to this thread? The gentiles having received the Holy Ghost before being baptized with water.

Sadly, the apparent defenders of Fr. Feeney in this thread do not seem to really understand the nuances of Fr. Feeney's teaching.

I wasn't defending anyone ... just talking about how the BoDer reading of Trent is untenable.

I love it how you have to "mansplain" everything to people after having made some gross errors, such as when you misdefined salvation and then dishonestly tried to use ellipses to accuse me of heresy.

Fr. Feeney was definitely correct that "salvation" is not possible without the Sacrament of Baptism. But he was not saying that "justification" is not possible without the Sacrament of Baptism, which is what I have argued in this thread. In other words, a soul in that state, if there are such souls, would be in a kind of "limbo." And it just so happens that the Bible talks about such a "limbo." It was called the "limbo of the just" aka "the bosom of Abraham. And that situation required at a extraordinary, supernatural act of Jesus descending into Hell to free the "just" from "limbo" and bring them to "salvation."

You act like this is something new, Father Feeney's distinction between justification and salvation.  Even if you yourself just figured it out, as it would seem, all the posters who have been arguing against you here are very well aware of Father's distinction.  So your condescending attitude of mansplaining things that to other posters who, unlike yourself, are too dense to understand, is rather unwarranted.

In fact, this (or, rather, a variant on it) is my position as well ... I started an entire thread on it ... where a kind of washing "justification" is possible short of salvific Baptism.  St. Ambrose wrote of unbaptized martyrs being "washed but not crowned."

What's disputed is whether this washing constitutes merely a removal of sin and the punishment due to it, so that those who are so washed would end up just like the infants who die unbaptized (who have no guilt of sin but no sanctifying grace either) or else like the Fathers in the Limbo Patrum, where they were in a state of grace (St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist, and many others) and yet unable to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  I personally believe that there may be a combination of both.

These are different theories and speculations, but at the end of the day we all agree that there can be no entry into the Kingdom of Heaven without having actually received the Sacrament of Baptism.  And, no, God does not recognize any such thing as impossibility in His bringing the Sacrament to His elect.  And, no, the Church would not be "condemning" countless souls to Hell by refusing to teach BoD.  Hell and the punishments of Hell are all due directly or indirectly to one's wilfull actions and sins, and they're the natural ramifications thereof.  Nobody will be punished in Hell who doesn't deserve it by having committed actual sin.  But, as St. Gregory nαzιanzen taught, there are those who are not so bad as to be punished, but not good enough to be glorified.  There's an in-between.  Our Lord Himself said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but that those who do not believe will be condemned ... leaving a group in between who are neither saved nor condemned.

Sadly, the apparent defenders of Fr. Feeney in this thread do not seem to really understand the nuances of Fr. Feeney's teaching.

What you fail to understand is that most of 'us' aren't 'feenites', thIs is some bull label made up to detract from EENS. Just because someone holds water baptism doesn't make them a 'feenites'.

My two favorite Fr. Feeney quotes from Bread of Life on the subject of a BOD, of which, btw, no BODer has ever acknowledged, much less attempt to give reply.

#1 "There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am
preaching to you."


#2 "I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again – he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by
water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get
into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people
off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good
fight and preserves the Faith."