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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 102

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire  (Read 64722 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #65 on: March 20, 2023, 05:57:36 AM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 18, 2023, 06:23:07 PM
It is curious though, looking at the title of this thread, no one has addressed the issues that the CATECHISM of the Council of Trent does indeed very explicitly teach BOD, as demonstrated by the excerpt that I posted earlier:

What are you talking about?  This has been adddressed repeatedly throughout this thread.  I see this type of reaction over and over again, and it speaks to confirmation bias and/or cognitive dissonance.  It's one thing if you don't accept or aren't convinced by the arguments being made, and quite another to make the false claim that it's never been addressed.  It's as if your mind filtered out the answers due to cognitive dissonance.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #66 on: March 20, 2023, 06:05:49 AM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 18, 2023, 06:23:07 PM
"With regard adults who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, for instance, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out a different manner of proceeding... On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this sacrament hastily: She will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." (p124,125 of the text)

There's no statement here whatsoever indicating that if such an adult died without the Sacrament he could be saved.  This passage can easily be read in the same sense as the text of St. Fulgentius, who used very similar language, where he stated that "confession can avail to salvation" ... because God would keep such an individual alive until he could receive the Sacrament of Baptism.  "Accident" is a mistranslation that helps reinforce this misinterpretation.  In Latin the term is more like "circuŠ¼stance / obstacle" and not our sense of "accident", as in a car accident ... much less a fatal accident.  There's no mention of death in this passage.  Finally, the construction, in Latin, of "not ... if [subjunctive moode]" has the sense of "lest" (aka, "not if it might"), meaning that their good will / intention would avail them to grace / righteousness (aka justification) lest any obstacle get in the way of their receiving the Sacrament because God would make sure that they don't die without the Sacrament (just as St. Fulgentius taught).  Council of Florence quoted St. Fulgentius nearly verbatim in its EENS definition, and it's likely that the sense of this passage is the same as that of St. Fulgentius, but in any case the Catechism is silent with regard to whether or not if such a one died before receiving the Sacrament they would be saved.  What it's saying here is that if you're properly disposed to receive the Sacrament, God would make sure you attain to grace and righteousness ... without any mention of how, but this mistranslation of the Latin as "[fatal] accident" is part of what contributes to the problem, along failing to take into account the hypothetical nature of the subjunctive mode.  I had a copy of the Latin one time, but I don't have it in front of me.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #67 on: March 20, 2023, 06:16:36 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on March 20, 2023, 04:41:40 AM
Also note that there is *no* mention of accidental death, only an "unforeseen accident," which could mean literally any unforeseen event *except death* that impedes the catechumen from receiving the sacrament as planned, anything from the priest having to reschedule due to an emergency, to the catechumen's car not starting, to whatever other "unforeseen accident" you can think of, except unforeseen accidental death.

Indeed, and the Latin translated here as "accident" implies in English some kind of fatal "accident", whereas the original Latin uses a broad term that translates more as "circuŠ¼stance," "event," or possibly "obstacle" ... without necessarily any reference to death, as in the English "fatal accident".  This mistranslation reminds me of the "except through" translation of the famous passage of Trent on justification.

This simply means that adults are not in the same danger as infants, because God will take into account their good dispositions to make sure that they will not die without grace and righteousness ... and is silent about whether that means such a one would be saved BoD (the BoDer reading, reinforced by the inaccurate translation of "accident") or whether this simply means that God will get the Sacrament to them before they die (sense of St. Fulgentius, who used the same expression, that confession would avail to salvation, because God would keep them alive to be baptized).
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #68 on: March 20, 2023, 06:18:42 AM »
Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 18, 2023, 06:23:07 PM
"... their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." (p124,125 of the text)

How?  According to St. Fulgentius, it's because God would keep them alive until they could receive the Sacrament on account of these dispositions.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #69 on: March 20, 2023, 06:59:29 AM »
I don't know already, it's the same arguments repeated over and over.

It simply boils down to....
There are those of us who accept the defined doctrines, Scripture, and all the other teachings from the highest authorities in the Church (and everything associated with those teachings that we must believe), and therefore cannot in good conscience accept a BOD because a BOD contradicts all those things regardless of the lesser authorities (great saints, catechisms etc.) who taught otherwise.

And there are those who believe defined doctrines, John 3:5 etc., but are convinced that all those teachings have exceptions built into them somehow, which apparently, is why they not only see no contradiction whatsoever, instead they're convinced a BOD is a doctrine of the Church.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 102
« previous next »