Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64703 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #80 on:** March 21, 2023, 06:22:40 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 20, 2023, 03:46:58 PM

Completely dishonest?

Well, you're well-known for ascribing the moral fault of dishonesty to other members, so at least I'm in good company.

But where do you get off? Especially when you're reading into the text yourself, big time. I honestly think the Rheim's annotation is closer to the Catechism, and your reading makes no sense: there's a real "danger" to be concerned about in someone dying while waiting for baptism than in the baptism being called off and having to be scheduled later because of a church fire or a winter storm or whatever . . . don't ya think?

Hey, since your reading is much less reasonable than mine, I guess you're, what, completely completely dishonest?

Yes, dishonest. You've made up your mind beforehand what outcome you would like to see. Rheims has nothing to do with the Catechism but is expressing its own viewpoint. Your attempting to read Rheims into the Catechism is in fact dishonest.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #81 on:** March 21, 2023, 07:07:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 21, 2023, 06:22:40 AM

Yes, dishonest. You've made up your mind beforehand what outcome you would like to see. Rheims has nothing to do with the Catechism but is expressing its own viewpoint. Your attempting to read Rheims into the Catechism is in fact dishonest.

I could just as easily say that St. Fulgentius has nothing to do with the Catechism and your reading into it. And I could say your insertion is "dishonest" as you have a anti-BOD agenda. As for me, no, I have no animus against Feeneyites or the Feeneyite position, having been a vigorous advocate of it.

But facts and truth don't really matter to you: what matters to you is whatever handle or tool you can grab as a lever in an argument (the erection of straw men, the questioning of the integrity of those you argue with, the branding of them as heretics, etc.), truth be damned.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** March 21, 2023, 07:44:49 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 21, 2023, 07:07:44 AM

I could just as easily say that St. Fulgentius has nothing to do with the Catechism and your reading into it.

I cited this as an example of a possible reading, and drew the conclusion that Trent was silent about HOW these dispositions would avail. I never said that this IS the meaning, but said that it's a possible meaning, and that you can't conclude from the Catechism that this means someone who died without the Sacrament could be saved, as the Catechism remains silent about how this would be accomplished. Unlike yourself, I am not going any farther than the evidence takes us.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #83 on:** March 21, 2023, 08:01:03 AM »

I found the Latin finally:

Quote

... Baptismi suscipiendi propositum, atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam, et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint.

... with the key passage being "si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint".

si = if
repentinus = unexpected / sudden
aliquis = some
casus = incident, occurence, event, generally with a negative connotation of being a bad event or a mishap

So to translate "casus" as "accident" is completely wrong. In English this implies some near-fatal or potential fatal incident, where there's nothing of the sort necessarily there in the Latin.

impediat = impede, get in the way of, become a hindrance to ... subjunctive mode, indicating a hypothetial possibility
https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program/Grammar/mood/Conditions/conditions-latin

Quote

The Subjunctive Mood used in conditions is a special usage of the potential subjunctive. The potential subjunctive presents a state or an act, not as fact, but as existing in the realm of possibility.

"quo minus" = from / lest (often following forms of impedio)
salutari = saving
aqua = water
ablui = to be washed off or cleansed

si (if) followed by a negative construct such as "quo minus" has a similar sense as the Latin "ne", meaning lest.

si + subjunctive + quo minus together could easily have the sense of "lest something prevent them from being able to be washed by the saving water".

All this passage is saying is that the proper dispositions of an adult would suffice (with God) to overcome any obstacle that might get in the way of their being washed by the saving water.

It's silent about HOW, whether this means keeping them alive until their Baptism (as St. Fulgentius held) or by a Baptism of desire. It could be either one, but Trent doesn't go into it, as the point is merely that it's OK to defer Baptism for adults because if they have the proper dispositions, they will not die and go to Hell ... whether this means that the not die (non-BoD reading), or whether it means that if they die they won't go to Hell (BoD reading).

This text is inconclusive at best.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #84 on:** March 21, 2023, 11:48:43 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 21, 2023, 07:44:49 AM

I cited this as an example of a possible reading, and drew the conclusion that Trent was silent about HOW these dispositions would avail. I never said that this IS the meaning, but said that it's a possible meaning, and that you can't conclude from the Catechism that this means someone who died without the Sacrament could be saved, as the Catechism remains silent about how this would be accomplished. Unlike yourself, I am not going any farther than the evidence takes us.

You're constantly shifting accusations, charges, etc. trying to save face and win arguments. It's pathetic.

I never said the BOD meaning is the meaning either. I said that the Catechism "seems much closer" in meaning to the Rheims annotation, with its BOD reading. I originally asked you to post the Fulgentius quote and said it would be nice to see them all, the St. F quote, the Rheims annotation, and the Catechism quote lined up together to compare them . . . that how "dishonest" I am.

I will add that the BOD reading does have going for it that about every single saint, Catholic Bible annotation, and catechism that discussed the issue post-Trent coming down for BOD.

As with Trent, so with the Catechism of Trent: do you know of any, any theologian or pope/bishop post-Trent who reads the Catechism your or the non-BOD way?

But hey, Laddie knows best.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64703 times)

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

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