Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 102

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire  (Read 64259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #485 on: April 21, 2023, 05:43:30 PM »
Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on April 21, 2023, 02:17:11 PM

Correct me if I'm mistaken but don't you believe that "Baptism of Desire" regenerates a man without remitting all sin so as to merit immediate entrance into heaven?

Don't you believe that initial justification can be incomplete?

Or do you believe one can be justified without regeneration?

He's sidestepping as usual. You can find quotes all over here from him about justification without salvation or regeneration. 

He's a good summary from a thread he started about his "Ladislausian soteriology":

Quote
Quote from: Ladislaus 3/15/2021, 8:07:58 PM


So here's Ladislausian soteriology in a nutshell.

The Sacrament of Baptism has two aspects to it:  1) the forgiveness and cleansing of sins and 2) entry into the Kingdom of God, the beatific vision as adopted sons of God into the family of the Holy Trinity.

#1 is effected by the graces of the Sacrament, but #2 is conferred in receiving the character of Baptism (the crown and the glory)

#1 deals with actual sin vs. actual virtue, the reward and punishment fitting each in justice, while #2 refers to unmerited grace that is owed to no one

#1 pertains to justification, and #2 to salvation.  But BOTH #2 and #1 must be had for salvation, as someone with the character is lost if dying in a state of grave sin.

#1 is the NATURAL aspect and #2 the SUPERnatural

Recall how Our Lord taught that St. John the Baptist was the greatest of all born of women (in the natural respect, #1) but was less than the LEAST member of the Kingdom (note that word again).  Ladislausianism also addresses the enigma of what Our Lord meant by that puzzling statement.  Those born of women refers to nature, whereas those born again of God refers to super-nature.  So as great as one could be naturally, that can't come close to the least bit of supernatural goodness.

So a martyred catechumen receives the Baptism of Blood, a perfect washing, and enters a state of justification and goes to Limbo, to enjoy perfect natural happiness for this act of perfect natural virtue.

But a martyred baptized person goes straight to heaven, since all their actual / natural sins are washed also.

Those who have the character but have some actual sin to cleanse go to Purgatory until they are cleansed so that they can enter the Kingdom.

Those who ardently desire Baptism and live virtuously will also have some (or even all) of their actual sin and punishment due to sin remitted as well (which seems to be what St. Ambrose is hoping for Valentinian).

So there IS in fact a baptism of desire and a baptism of blood, but these are only effective toward the cleansing or the washing part of Baptism, but not the glory or honor or crowning part ... which requires the character of Baptism and therefore the Sacrament.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/msg737838/#msg737838


Logged

Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #486 on: April 21, 2023, 07:44:58 PM »
Quote from: CatholicInAmerica on April 21, 2023, 12:04:35 PM
“I didn’t read your arguments”… sounded like fallible cope? I cited Trent. Regarding what you say about Cantate Domino, that teaching is further explained in Trent’s decree on Justification. Baptism alone does not save, in the same way that Faith alone does not save. If you understand the true teaching on Justification, you will understand that even Baptism of water will not itself save a man unless he also have Faith and cooperate with Gods grace. Having Faith.. I.E. being in the bosom of the Church. A heretic could “shed blood” for the Church, but would not be saved as he is outside the church.
A person not water baptised is outside the church. A person outside cannot gain anything if they shed their blood for Christ. Hence a non baptised person cannot be saved by baptism of blood.
Logged

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #487 on: April 21, 2023, 08:45:51 PM »
This thread is not (or should not) be about what Brownson, Ladislaus or I thinks about BOD.  Who cares?  We aren’t the Church.  

It’s also not about what Pius XII told some midwives at a luncheon or what one of the hundreds of different catechisms mentioned in passing.

This topic should be about what the Church authoritatively, definitively, dogmatically, under-pain-of-sin, and unless-you-believe-it-you-won’t-be-saved, about BOD.  

Answer:  There’s nothing definitive, dogmatic or under-pain-of-sin teaching about BOD.  
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #488 on: April 22, 2023, 08:37:12 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 21, 2023, 08:45:51 PM
This thread is not (or should not) be about what Brownson, Ladislaus or I thinks about BOD.  Who cares?  We aren’t the Church. 

It’s also not about what Pius XII told some midwives at a luncheon or what one of the hundreds of different catechisms mentioned in passing.

This topic should be about what the Church authoritatively, definitively, dogmatically, under-pain-of-sin, and unless-you-believe-it-you-won’t-be-saved, about BOD. 

Answer:  There’s nothing definitive, dogmatic or under-pain-of-sin teaching about BOD. 

This is the bottom line.  Pius XII opining in front of some midwives is not Universal Magisterium, nor was a letter written by Innocent II/III which he based on the "authority" of Augustine and Ambrose.  We have to recall that in a very similiar letter (to the one in which he mentions BoD), he wrote that consecration at Mass is valid if the priest even thinks the words of consecration, for which St. Thomas Aquinas correctly rebuked him.

Really the only thing approaching authoritative Magisterium (vs. opining as a private Doctor) would be Trent.  That's it.  It's clear to me that Trent was not teaching BoD, although it didn't definitively close the door on the matter either.

There are two very serious dogmatic teachings of the Church that strongly militate against BoD.

1) Pope St. Siricius' decree.
2) Dogmatic EENS definition stating that there's no salvation outside the Church "of the faithful".  Msgr. Fenton even admits that the term fideles positively excludes Catechumens.

Also, if you believe Trent was teaching BoD, BoB must be rejected as having any independent existence and as not reducing to BoB, and you must reject the notion that temporal punishment can remain after justificaton by BoD.  In fact, that same Pope Innocent letter declares that those saved by BoD rush to heaven without delay (i.e. are regenerated).  But no BoDer believes these things.  They only accept Trent when it's convenient for them to do so.  Ironically, St. Alphonsus accuses himself of heresy with his temporal punishment theory regarding BoD, since he said that a Pope Innocent letter made BoD dogma.  Well, Pope Innocent also said that all temporal punishment is removed.

BoD is an absolute hot mess, which is clear evidence that the Church has never defined anything of the sort.

God has allowed this opinion to flourish because witout BoD theory there could never have been Vatican II and the false ecclesiology of Vatican II on which all the Vatican II errors rest.  And God willed to allow this Crisis.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #489 on: April 22, 2023, 08:43:15 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on April 21, 2023, 05:43:30 PM

He's sidestepping as usual. You can find quotes all over here from him about justification without salvation or regeneration.

What a pathetic liar.  YOU equate salvation with regeneration and then mendaciously attribute that conflation to me, when in point of fact, it is PRECISELY the distinction between justification and salvation that is the basis for my position.  Trent equates (initial) JUSTIFICATION with regeneration, not salvation as you claim.  I have repeatedly cited Trent to the effect that initial justification requires regeneration.  What I do is to distinguish between justification and salvation.  You try to sneak your lie in there with the phrase "salvation or regeneration", as if Trent equated regeneration with salvation rather than justification.

Removal of punishment due to sin, by the way, is not necessarily justification.  Infants who die unbaptized are not in a state of justification.  But they also lack any punishment due to sin.  Where my theory comes in is that I posit that there can also be justified individuals in a Limbo state also, similar to the state the OT just were in.  We had the theologian Melchior Cano hold, for instance, that infidels can be justified by implicit faith, but not saved.  This distinction between justification and salvation was not invented by Father Feeney.  Really the only argument that BoDers have for asserting that all who die in a state of justification are necessarily saved (i.e. enter the Kingdom of Heaven) is an out-of-context distoration of a condemnation against Baius, but I have gone through and explained the bizarre theory of Baius that was being condemned, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the BoDers claim.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 102
« previous next »