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 64267 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #490 on: April 22, 2023, 09:03:41 AM »
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.

When St. Ambrose spoke of a state of "washed" but not crowned, it's unclear whether he meant that they were justified or just had the punishment due to sin removed, i.e. whether this washing removed the guilt of sin or just the punishment due to sin (as mentioned, these are two different things).  I believe that he meant he former.  He referred to both unbaptized martyrs and people like Valentinian as washed but not crowned.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #491 on: April 22, 2023, 09:20:56 AM »

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.

Clown.

Nice modification of your post, btw. I guess "pathetic liar" is better than "Old Catholic heretic." Likely my exchange with Brownson above - particuarly note my post #476 - in this thread caused the modification. :laugh1:

And it's a good thing you withdrew the heretic charge, in light of Trent and your, ah, pathetic lying (in your newly found spirit of forgoing heresy claims) Laudislausian theory that one could be justified and regenerated "in Christ" but not in a salvific state:

Quote

CHAPTER III.


Who are justified through Christ.

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.



Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #492 on: April 22, 2023, 02:21:58 PM »

Clown.

Nice modification of your post, btw. I guess "pathetic liar" is better than "Old Catholic heretic." Likely my exchange with Brownson above - particuarly note my post #476 - in this thread caused the modification. :laugh1:

And it's a good thing you withdrew the heretic charge, in light of Trent and your, ah, pathetic lying (in your newly found spirit of forgoing heresy claims) Laudislausian theory that one could be justified and regenerated "in Christ" but not in a salvific state:

Lad is going to have to explain how his view is  compatible with Trent. That’s the bottom line. He must explain through Trent that his position is consistent or he are in error. 

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #493 on: April 22, 2023, 03:37:54 PM »
St Alphonsus also needs to explain why he disagreed with Trent.  See new thread on the topic.  

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #494 on: April 22, 2023, 03:55:42 PM »
St Alphonsus also needs to explain why he disagreed with Trent.  See new thread on the topic. 

He never explained at all where he got this idea in the first place that temporal punishment might remain after justification by BoD.  There are no Patristic sources, nothing.  It seems to be just completely made up out of thin air.