Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64264 times)

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #420 on:** April 08, 2023, 06:27:46 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on April 08, 2023, 03:49:19 AM

Angelus,

You’re arguing before a “Manhattan jury.” May angels attend you.

DR

What does "manhatten jury" mean?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #421 on:** April 08, 2023, 06:32:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 07, 2023, 10:23:03 PM

He's simply rehashing and respamming the same nonsense that we've dealt with already on this thread. It shows desperation as his idol of "BoD" crumbles before his eyes.

Of course, even IF the Catechism were making reference to BoD (it's not), it would have nothing to do with interpreting this particular passage in Trent or its meaning.

No, the disambiguation of Trent's meaning comes immediately afterwards with the Scripture proof text it cites for the statement.

No justification without water or the votum, because Our Lord taught that water AND the Holy Spirit were necessary. THAT is the disambiguation, not some passage in the Catechism that may or may not be related.

You won't listen to reason. I know having discussed this with you, and others here, and others elsewhere. I know, because I once had the same uncompromising belief that I was right on this and all the BODers were wrong. I wouldn't listen.

Here's some reason.

The Catechism, quoted by Angelus, says:

Quote

Regarding Infant Baptism

"Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

The "since," for infants, is a mark of distinction, making them some sort of exception, marking them as apart from another group for whicn there may be another means of salvation. Infants are being compared to what there? Trees? Rocks? Be sensible and rational.

The Catechism is only being consistent here with the Council of Florence (1442), which in the very bull, Cantate Domino, which asserts the dogma of EENS, also marks infants as distinct in respect to the means of salvation:

Quote

Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. (Dz 712)

This is also consistent with Pius XII in his address to midwives:

Quote

An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

In other words, Pius XII is saying that as to infants there is "no other means of salvation" or "no help can be brought to them by another remedy."

But we know you won't listen in your echo chamber.

There is no other means for children because for some other men, not trees, not rocks, but some other humans (only humans can be "saved" or partake of the "remedy" for original sin), namely non-infant adults, have another means that may, under certain circuмstances and exceptions, be available.

In your reliance on an exclusive and literal reading of John 3:5 you're unfortunately like a Jehovah Witness who denies the divinity of Christ and His equality with the Father by citing John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I") as dispositive and settling the question.

The JWs are unreasonable and wrong, and so are you.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #422 on:** April 08, 2023, 06:32:48 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on April 08, 2023, 03:52:55 AM

That’s one of the loudest echos to ever come from your echo chamber.

Just the truth.

Angelus starts by grossly misdefining salvation as having to do with going straight to Heaven without Purgatory.

Angelus deceptively used ellipses on a Canon in Trent to accuse others of heresy.

Angelus attempted to arrogantly mansplain the notion that Father Feeney distinguished between justification and salvation, as if everyone here isn't aware of that.

Angelus continues to go in circles, citing his begging-the-question reading of one source as proof for his begging-the-question reading of another source.

He is either unable to or refuse to offer any rebuttal of the arguments made, but simply re-spams the same nonsense over and over again.

All these are signs of desperation and of gross intellectual dishonesty. He's not looking for the truth.

And the same holds for you, as you've demonstrated repeatedly in the past by promoting Old Catholic heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #423 on:** April 08, 2023, 06:35:24 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on April 08, 2023, 06:32:17 AM

You won't listen to reason.

You bad-willed imbecile, that IS reason. Your restating of your opinion is not an argument, and not one of you have rationally refuted the points made.

And you keep citing the Catechism of Trent as evidence for interpreting this particular passage in Trent. You have absolutely no sense about logic and logical arugments. Now you take it to the next step by citing something from Pius XII as if it were remotely related to interpreting Trent.

Answer is right in the next, but neither one of you bad-willed clowns can refute the argument, or have even tried. Instead, you attempt to cite other sources that are completely irrelevant.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #424 on:** April 08, 2023, 06:36:36 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on April 08, 2023, 06:27:46 AM

What does "manhatten jury" mean?

Blind or deaf to facts and reason because of bias and overpowering inclination. An allusion to the discussions about the "justice" in store for Trump in Manhattan if his case goes to trial.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64264 times)

AnthonyPadua

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

Ladislaus

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