In The Teaching of the Catholic Church by Canon George Smith (1960), it states regarding Baptism of Desire that "today it is the opinion of all theologians": The Teaching of the Catholic Church; a summary of Catholic doctrine : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/teachingofcathol002unse/page/782/mode/2up) p382-385"Today" it is the teaching of all of today's theologians. Same as the NO is taught by all the bishops in union with the pope. The only thing that actually proves is unanimity in error.
It is interesting to read the account of the funeral oration of St Ambrose for the Emperor Valentinian who died a catechumen before he could be baptised by St Ambrose: He heard people expressing regret that the Emperor died without baptism: "Will he not then receive the grace which he desired and obtain what he asked for?"
If "Baptism of Desire" was something contained in the "deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why then would these faithful be grieved that Valentinlan had not been baptized with water?This was, of course, in the Fourth Century, the Church had not long been out of exile. The Deposit of Faith was far from being clearly expounded on many things. Just think, St Augustine had only just started writing about Grace... It is understandable that the faithful may have had too-concrete an understanding of the necessity of Baptism. For what is the ordinary means of salvation does not limit the One Who established those means. Hence the instruction given to them by St Ambrose for their consolation. How could St Thomas speak so prolifically and with such certainty and eloquence on Baptism of Desire if Brother Francis were correct? How could he even be canonised, let alone held as the prince of theologians, if his theology contained errors against Apostolic doctrine? Do you really prefer Br Francis to St Thomas, Stubborn? How could St Thomas miss the fact that these faithful were grieved for this reason and not understand it as Apostolic doctrine which admits of no exception? it's ludicrous. St Thomas explains in the Summa "The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm) and from the Holy Ghost (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm). Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) is not destroyed."
The reason these faithful were grieved was because they believed that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
In The Teaching of the Catholic Church by Canon George Smith (1960), it states regarding Baptism of Desire that "today it is the opinion of all theologians": The Teaching of the Catholic Church; a summary of Catholic doctrine : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/teachingofcathol002unse/page/782/mode/2up) p382-385
This is correct. Even the term that's commonly translated into English as "accident" simply means circuмstance. This passage merely echoes nearly verbatim the teaching of St. Fulgentius who taught that confession of the faith can avail to salvation ... by keeping someone alive until God can bring them the Sacrament of Baptism.
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml
5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
In other words, a justification without salvation ... just as Father Feeney held.
Are you really going to bring up the argument - now that we are hundreds of years post-Trent on justification - about justification without salvation again?
Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.
I say the Catechism does as well.Depends which catechism you read. Older ones are much more orthodox. Even the original Baltimore Catechism of the 1800s was anti-BOD. It was later "updated". The enemies of the Church started infiltrating the Church way back in the 1400s. Let's not pretend that the devil didn't think of this until Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the 1700s.
Yes, I recall you posting something from St. Fulgentius that had a striking similarity in language. It'd be nice to see that quote again.
Depends which catechism you read. Older ones are much more orthodox. Even the original Baltimore Catechism of the 1800s was anti-BOD. It was later "updated". The enemies of the Church started infiltrating the Church way back in the 1400s. Let's not pretend that the devil didn't think of this until Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the 1700s.
The doctrine of EENS (and the flimsy, sentimental idea of BOD which is used to water-down EENS) has been under-attack ever since the post-Middle Ages when the heights of Catholicism started to decline. It also coincided with the dawn of exploration of the Americas, when liberal clerics (the precursors to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) started questioning Christ's "hard line" in order to save the "poor, innocent indians" whom (they heretically argue) God didn't care about.
When the facts show that God worked miracles for those groups of indians who He knew would listen to the Faith, by sending saints to bi-locate and give them the Divine Truths. These good-willed indians were few, and they followed the natural law. And God gave them the truth, by way of miracles. Which He promised.
The historical record shows that the vast majority of "poor, innocent indians" were anything but. They were constantly at war, their culture revolved around seeking more and more territory, and they worshipped satan (some directly, many indirectly) through their medicine-man "witches" who supported and encouraged cannibalism, human sacrifice and other atrocities.
Then when missionaries came to preach the gospel, most tribes killed them, or attempted to. Thus, God sent the devastating small pox virus to "wipe out" all those tribes who rejected His ministers. Notice that the small pox did not kill any tribes that accepted the Faith.
I'll try to find it again here. Interestingly, the Council of Florence's EENS definition was almost a verbatim citation from St. Fulgentius.
You don't think Trent's catechism has been "updated" after a period of years? If not, i'd say you'd be naive.
Well, the whole a BOD subject is actually kinda ridiculous imo, I mean, the first ridiculous thing is that the idea itself is only ever defended by those already baptized, think about that for a minute."I also think in some way that it may well be possible that God may be offended because His own faithful people are promoting the idea that He cannot or will not provide the sacrament that He very clearly mandated as a requirement for salvation (and on that account is obligated to provide), regardless of the circuмstances."
I also think in some way that it may well be possible that God may be offended because His own faithful people are promoting the idea that He cannot or will not provide the sacrament that He very clearly mandated as a requirement for salvation (and on that account is obligated to provide), regardless of circuмstances.
"I also think in some way that it may well be possible that God may be offended because His own faithful people are promoting the idea that He cannot or will not provide the sacrament that He very clearly mandated as a requirement for salvation (and on that account is obligated to provide), regardless of the circuмstances."There really is so many very good and sound reasons to reject a BOD, that to debate the idea so often is already ridiculous.
BINGO! That's why we have the story of the miracle shown in Acts 8.
And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith, ... God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation ...
But God desired that his confession should avail for his salvation, since he preserved him in this life until the time of his holy regeneration.
If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism. At his age, not only was confession without baptism of no avail: Baptism itself would be of no avail for salvation if he neither believed nor confessed.
You don't think Trent's catechism has been "updated" after a period of years? If not, i'd say you'd be naive."The Catechism of The Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire", thus the title of this thread. Maybe I'm missing something on one of the links, but I can't see anywhere the justification for this statement.
There is also from The Council of Trent, Session VII, Decree on The Sacraments, Canon IV:The above is the Decree on the sacraments from the 7th session which covers all of the sacraments.
"If anyone saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that without them, or the desire thereof men obtain of God through faith alone the grace of justification; though all are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
What they miss is the preceding session (6th), which is strictly about the sacrament of baptism when it states that justification cannot be effected "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof," which is, quite literally, condemning the idea of a BOD.Council of Trent, Session VI, January 13, 1547, Decree on Justification:
For reasons known only to BODers, they read this to say "without the laver of regeneration or *without* the desire thereof," then apply idea #2 above into the mix. They then go so far as to insist that even Trent's catechism teaches a BOD.
Council of Trent, Session VI, January 13, 1547, Decree on Justification:No, by adding a meaning to that which it clearly does not say, you are playing with the words. The word is "or" and it means "or," it means only "or."
"...By which words a description of the justification of the impious is indicated - as being a translation of that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, Our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".
Surely this affirms BOD and does not condemn it. The obvious sense of the words is not 'without the laver of regeneration and the desire', as you want to make it say, but one or the other, the laver of regeneration or the desire of the laver of regeneration. Otherwise, the Council would be saying that the baptism of a baby is not effected until it is old enough to also have the desire. Surely you can see that.
No, by adding a meaning to that which it clearly does not say, you are playing with the words. The word is "or" and it means "or," it means only "or."You really think so little of the intellect of all those eminent saints and authors quoted, and so much of your own? Stubborn, really?
It is because justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, that neither can justification be effected with the desire for the laver of regeneration. This is the meaning of "or." Justification cannot be effect without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament means what it says. They confirm this by ending with "as it is written John 3:5."
Trent says no sacrament = no justification. They do not then immediately contradict themselves with the following 4 words "or the desire thereof."
Council of Trent, Session VI, January 13, 1547, Decree on Justification:One cannot be justified with the "laver of regeneration" alone, but must also have the desire for it. Do you agree?
"...By which words a description of the justification of the impious is indicated - as being a translation of that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, Our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".
Surely this affirms BOD and does not condemn it. The obvious sense of the words is not 'without the laver of regeneration and the desire', as you want to make it say, but one or the other, the laver of regeneration or the desire of the laver of regeneration. Otherwise, the Council would be saying that the baptism of a baby is not effected until it is old enough to also have the desire. Surely you can see that.
Also, why would you understand 'or the desire thereof', the exact same phrase, in the Session VII Decree on The Sacraments to mean 'either, or', and not 'both' as you do here? The reason you understood it to mean 'either, or' for that decree, is because that is the obvious sense, which you didn't even think to challenge for that particular statement, because it was not necessary to take it in the less obvious sense in order to preserve the doctrine you have a preconceived notion about.
You really think so little of the intellect of all those eminent saints and authors quoted, and so much of your own? Stubborn, really?Just reading what is written. I believe it is written that way to be understood that way.
Surely this affirms BOD and does not condemn it. The obvious sense of the words is not 'without the laver of regeneration and the desire', as you want to make it say, but one or the other, the laver of regeneration or the desire of the laver of regeneration. Otherwise, the Council would be saying that the baptism of a baby is not effected until it is old enough to also have the desire. Surely you can see that.
One cannot be justified with the "laver of regeneration" alone, but must also have the desire for it. Do you agree?Sorry, I missed your comment about infant baptism. I thought that the desire was supplied by those that bring the infant to be baptised? However, let me rephrase my question.
CMRI Have a Very Thorough Treatment of the Subject, God Bless them:
Council of Trent, Session VI, January 13, 1547, Decree on Justification:
"...By which words a description of the justification of the impious is indicated - as being a translation of that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, Our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".
Surely this affirms BOD and does not condemn it. The obvious sense of the words is not 'without the laver of regeneration and the desire', as you want to make it say, but one or the other, the laver of regeneration or the desire of the laver of regeneration.
Sorry, I missed your comment about infant baptism. I thought that the desire was supplied by those that bring the infant to be baptised? However, let me rephrase my question.No, this is not necessarily always the case. An unconscious catechumen is one example.
An adult cannot be justified with the laver of regeneration while lacking the desire for it. Do you agree?
No, this is not necessarily always the case. An unconscious catechumen is one example.That you for the response, I understand your point about sacrilegious baptism. But wouldn't an unconscious catechumen have implicit desire, considering the fact that he is a catechumen? I don't exactly have a dog in the fight, I was just looking for clarification about the interpretation of Trent that says the desire of the laver alone can justify.
One who desires to gets baptized and actually gets baptized only so he can marry, or receive an inheritance, or to please someone, or gets baptized outside of the Church, is not only *not* justified, but also receives the sacrament sacrilegiously.
But what point is it that you're trying to make?
That you for the response, I understand your point about sacrilegious baptism. But wouldn't an unconscious catechumen have implicit desire, considering the fact that he is a catechumen? I don't exactly have a dog in the fight, I was just looking for clarification about the interpretation of Trent that says the desire of the laver alone can justify.Ah ok, yes, I would also say that by definition the catechumen desires the sacrament, even tho while he is unconscious he cannot desire it at that time. I think this is along the lines of Trent's catechism, which says if someone is insane but previous to their insanity desired the sacrament, they can be baptized.
Ah ok, yes, I would also say that by definition the catechumen desires the sacrament, even tho while he is unconscious he cannot desire it at that time. I think this is along the lines of Trent's catechism, which says if someone is insane but previous to their insanity desired the sacrament, they can be baptized.Yes, I may have been muddling my words in my original comments so bear with me haha
Trent teaches that the laver of regeneration and the desire for the laver are necessary for justificationor
Laver and Desire = Justification (In the case of infants is the desire supplied? Is desire implied with unconscious catechumens?)
Laver but No Desire = No Justification (Such as your examples of sacrilegious baptisms)
No Laver but Desire = No Justification
Trent teaches that the laver of regeneration or at least the desire for the laver are necessary for justification
Laver and Desire = Justification
Laver but no Desire = No Justification(?)
No laver but Desire = Justification
Yes, I may have been muddling my words in my original comments so bear with me hahaWell yes, for adults the desire is necessary for justification, but Trent does not teach your second example, so not sure what to make of it.
These are the scenarios I was envisioningQuoteTrent teaches that the laver of regeneration and the desire for the laver are necessary for justification
Laver and Desire = Justification (In the case of infants is the desire supplied? Is desire implied with unconscious catechumens?)
Laver but No Desire = No Justification (Such as your examples of sacrilegious baptisms)
No Laver but Desire = No Justification
orQuoteTrent teaches that the laver of regeneration or at least the desire for the laver are necessary for justification
Laver and Desire = Justification
Laver but no Desire = No Justification
No laver but Desire = Justification
So with the first interpretation, Trent is explicitly stating that with the laver, the desire for the laver is also necessary for justification. That makes sense to me, that no one can be justified without desiring it. If I run up to a Muslim and quickly baptize him, he isn't justified because he did not desire baptism.
With the second interpretation, the line from Trent is no longer explicitly saying that you need the laver with the desire for the laver to be justified. Is it implied that if you receive the laver, you must also have the desire to receive it in order to be justified?
Well yes, for adults the desire is necessary for justification, but Trent does not teach your second example, so not sure what to make of it.I see. My second example is what I took the pro-BOD interpretation to be. Thank you again for your responses, I do appreciate it
See, the specific teachings are specifically worded in a negative tenor. Your examples are in the positive - which is the way BODers read the same teachings which only adds to their confusion.
When Trent says justification cannot be effected without the sacrament or a desire for the sacrament, they are ruling out any possibility of justification without the sacrament of baptism. Whatever anyone else says to the contrary, Trent is clear. Again, if one thinks it is confusing, then what they need to do is realize that Trent concluded with "as it is written, unless a man....." so as to to cement the teaching and remove all doubt.
St Robert Bellarmine was born a few years before the start of the Council of Trent. In his work De Ecclesia, Book III: On The Church Militant, Chapter III On the Unbaptised, he teaches this:St. Robert Bellarmine didn't just teach BOD, he taught that the Council of Trent teaches BOD. Is anyone going to say that the words of the Council can't be misunderstood, and at the same time say St. Robert Bellarmine misunderstood them? Or is anyone willing to claim they understand what the council meant better than St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Suarez, Cornelius a Lapide, and many more who specifically understood the Council to be teaching BOD?
"... it is said outside the Church no man is saved, and this ought to be understood on those who are neither in fact nor in desire within the Church, just as all the Theologians commonly teach on Baptism. Moreover, if the Catechumens are not in the Church de facto, at least they are in the Church in desire, therefore they can be saved. This is not opposed to the similitude of the Ark of Noah (outside of which no man was saved), even if he were in it by desire since similitudes do not agree in all things. For that reason, 1 Peter 3 compares Baptism to the ark of Noah and still it is certain that some are saved without Baptism in fact.
"But one might say, Augustine says that Catechumens are in the Church; it is true, but in the same place he separates them from the faithful. Therefore, he meant that they are in the Church not by act, but by potency, which he explains in the beginning of the 2nd book on the Creed, where he compares Catechumens to men who are conceived but not yet born."
It is certain that some are saved without Baptism in fact. It is certain. Immediately following the Council of Trent. Saint, Bishop and Doctor of the Church, St Robert Bellarmine.
But it must be believed without doubt that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when, not of contempt, but of necessity some die without Baptism of water. It is expressly stated, Ezech. 18, if the wicked do penance for all his sins, I will not remember all his iniquities. Thus also Ambrose clearly teaches in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: Whom I was, he says, about to regenerate, I have lost; but he did not lose the grace which he had hoped for. Thus also Augustine lib.4. de baptism, cap.22. & Bernard epist.77 & after them Innocent III. cap. Apostolicam, de presbytero non baptizato, whence also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire.
St Robert "believed" that catechumens might have BOD. Ok, fine. St Thomas talks about the same thing.
The heresy begins when you start to apply the word "catechumen" incorrectly. When you say that Jєωs, muslims, pagans, unbaptized protestants, etc can have BOD. They cannot and that is grave error and a denial of Trent. Why? Because these groups of people cannot be catechumens, in the proper sense.
If one is a formal catechumen, this means they have 1) rejected their former false religion, 2) are formally learning the Faith at a Catholic Church, 3) have an express desire to become a Catholic.
If someone does not fulfill the above general requirements, then they aren't a catechumen and the St Thomas/St Robert's writings don't apply.
Here, here. I get tired of people arguing that an unrepentant Protestant/Jєω/musloid/whatever can be saved by BOD. Why don't we apply this "logic" to Stalin, Hitler, Cromwell..........A Protestant, is possibly/likely baptised, in which case BOD would not apply, but who can know if a Protestant is "unrepentant" when he dies? Who knows the state of any soul entering their eternity? God alone, unless by special revelation.
So many modernists....so little time.
St. Robert Bellarmine didn't just teach BOD, he taught that the Council of Trent teaches BOD. Is anyone going to say that the words of the Council can't be misunderstood, and at the same time say St. Robert Bellarmine misunderstood them? Or is anyone willing to claim they understand what the council meant better than St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Suarez, Cornelius a Lapide, and many more who specifically understood the Council to be teaching BOD?Yes, great quote In Principio.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Baptismo, Lib. I, Cap. VI
The infidel, the pagan? Let it suffice to say, that if they are saved, it is only in and through the Catholic Church.+St Bellarmine and St Thomas would disagree. So would Trent. All 3 of these talk about CATECHUMENS and BOD. Not pagans, infidels, “good willed” natives, etc. Only Catechumens.
A Protestant, is possibly/likely baptised, in which case BOD would not apply, but who can know if a Protestant is "unrepentant" when he dies? Who knows the state of any soul entering their eternity? God alone, unless by special revelation.
You definitively exclude the possibility of their conversion, the possibility that they died in God's grace? That is not Catholic. Admittedly, who would want to be in their shoes? But that is beside the point.
Yes, great quote In Principio.
But it must be believed without doubt that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when, not of contempt, but of necessity some die without Baptism of water. It is expressly stated, Ezech. 18, if the wicked do penance for all his sins, I will not remember all his iniquities. Thus also Ambrose clearly teaches in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: Whom I was, he says, about to regenerate, I have lost; but he did not lose the grace which he had hoped for. Thus also Augustine lib.4. de baptism, cap.22. & Bernard epist.77 & after them Innocent III. cap. Apostolicam, de presbytero non baptizato, whence also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire.
As you say, these giants of the Church not only teach it, but they explicitly say that Trent teaches it. It's there in black and white, but so many members of this forum prefer their own "understanding" of what Trent teaches. How is it possible? It is just incomprehensible to me, it just beggars belief.
+St Bellarmine and St Thomas would disagree. So would Trent. All 3 of these talk about CATECHUMENS and BOD. Not pagans, infidels, “good willed” natives, etc. Only Catechumens.
What you describe above is more like Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” nonsense and V2’s heretical lumen gentium.
A Protestant, is possibly/likely baptised, in which case BOD would not apply, but who can know if a Protestant is "unrepentant" when he dies? Who knows the state of any soul entering their eternity? God alone, unless by special revelation.You perfectly exemplify where a BOD ultimately *always* leads, namely, to even ignorant infidels and pygmies in heaven. Never mind Scripture teaches that to not believe in Christ is a sin, and that to die in that sin condemns them to hell.
Cromwell, being a Puritan, was also almost certainly baptised.
Stalin and Hitler were born Catholics and surely received the sacrament of baptism. You definitively exclude the possibility of their conversion, the possibility that they died in God's grace? That is not Catholic. Admittedly, who would want to be in their shoes? But that is beside the point.
The infidel, the pagan? Let it suffice to say, that if they are saved, it is only in and through the Catholic Church. Imagine some pygmy in a rainforest in deepest darkest Africa isolated from all civilization, let alone Christianity. Did God create this soul? Does He have an infinite love for them? Does he not desire the salvation of that soul that He created infinitely? Will He not give them the means to attain the end for which He created them, and which He Himself infinitely desires? Given that the Church teaches BOD, obviously God does save souls without the ordinary means of sacramental baptism. Now if a soul like this, in invincible ignorance, seeks and desires God and wants with all his heart to know and love and obey Him, will God not take this desire, just like He takes BOD, for the reality of Charity and take that soul to rejoice with Him in the blessedness of Heaven? No one is saying it is not rare. No one is denying EENS. God's mercy is infinite. That does not deny His Justice. Any soul, whoever and wherever they may be, that truly seeks God in this life, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Jєω, Moslem... any soul that seeks God will not be confounded. You judge the exterior. God judges the interior. God looks at the heart.
We believe that St. Robert Bellarmine was wrong on this point, and so did St. Peter Canisius, who authored one of the most famous and papally-approved Catechisms in Church history, actually cited the Council of Trent as REJECTING Baptism of Desire. But you won't see any of St. Peter's citations quoted by the BoDers, since they fitler out anything that doesn't line up with their agenda. St. Peter Canisius was present at Trent and was considered one of the top theologians in the Church.St Peter Canisius did no such thing. You misrepresent him in the precise way you misrepresent the Council of Trent.
You've made up your mind ahead of time and proclaim "Great Quote" when something agrees with your predetermined conclusion, but then filter out anything to the contrary.
St. Robert Bellarmine was mixed up here. Desire can supply for Baptism, he says. Supply how? Baptism has two effects, the remission of sin and the conferral of the Baptismal character. So it doesn't fully supply for Baptism. None of this is clearly elaborated, and the part of St. Robert's opinon that is almost never cited by BoDers is where he gives his reasoning that Catechumens can be saved in this manner (note, no one else, because he strongly believed in the Church being a visible society, some later would argue that this was to a fault), the part that's never cited is where St. Robert gives his reasoning as that "it would seem too harsh" to exclude Catechumens from the possibility of salvation ... so emotional theology, which is what St. Augustine clearly states gave rise to BoD theory in the first place.
You perfectly exemplify where a BOD ultimately *always* leads, namely, to even ignorant infidels and pygmies in heaven. Never mind Scripture teaches that to not believe in Christ is a sin, and that to die in that sin condemns them to hell.If St Thomas knows nothing of BOD or BOB in his "Catechetical Instruction", he clearly teaches it in the Summa, did you not read my earlier post?
In St. Thomas' Catechetical Instruction, he knows nothing of a BOD or of a BOB, he teaches:
"The Nature and Effects of Faith.--The first thing that is necessary for every Christian is faith, without which no one is truly called a faithful Christian.
[1] Faith brings about four good effects. The first is that through faith the soul is united to God, and by it there is between the soul and God a union akin to marriage. "I will espouse thee in faith."
[2] When a man is baptised the first question that is asked him is: "Do you believe in God?"
[3] This is because Baptism is the first Sacrament of faith. Hence, the Lord said: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved."
[4] Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."[5] St. Augustine explains these words of St.Paul, "All that is not of faith is sin,"[6] in this way: "Where there is no knowledge of the eternal and unchanging Truth, virtue even in the midst of the best moral life is false."
But BODers say the 'desire' for baptism without faith, is of such immeasurably high value that it is all but a dogmatic fact that it saves. The whole idea is altogether absurd.
This is both stupid and at the same time a slanderous straw man, attributing the opinion that anyone "definitively exclude(s) the possibility of their conversion" to anyone here. Absolutely NO ONE does this, nor did the poster to whom you were responding here.Just more rash judgements, misrepresentation, and personal attacks
What is this emotional drivel that you're trying to pass off as theology?
Entire point of the teaching from Pope Gregory XVI on that other related thread is that while this is possible, unless the distinctions are explicitly made, the general act of "praying for" a departed heretic undermines the Church dogma regarding EENS. It's incredibly unlikely, and St. Alphonsus said that the chances were miniscule, for someone who lived either outside the Church or in sin their entire lives, to experience a last moment conversion, since that's not how God's Providence normally works. But no one holds that it's not theoretically possible for this to have happened and definitively excludes the possibility.
Church presumes them lost, and in the external forum treats them as lost. If we die and go to heaven, and happen to find that such a one was saved in their last moments, then glory to God. But to try to spin this as if it's something likely or common, or to indiscriminately, without making all these distinctions, claim to be praying for them, is to express the sentiment that there is good hope of their salvation, even if they did not convert to the Catholic faith in their last moments.
There was a decree of the Holy Office under Pope St. Pius X, in response to a question about whether Catholics could say it was possible for Confucius to have been saved, and answer was that Catholics must respond that he was damned, as all infidels are damned.
Bottom line is that the people who speak this way, as you do, don't REALLY believe that there's no salvation outside the Church. You pay lip service to the dogma because you have to ... after all, it's a dogma. But that's as far as your belief in it goes.
If St Thomas knows nothing of BOD or BOB in his "Catechetical Instruction", he clearly teaches it in the Summa, did you not read my earlier post?
No, I do not hold that someone can have BOD without faith. But I do hold as absolutely certain that God desires every man to be saved, and that he gives every man the grace to save his soul. The conclusion is obvious. God is not limited by the ordinary means He established for salvation, He sees the heart, and the Almighty acts directly on souls. Faith usually comes by hearing, yes, that is the ordinary way, but with some, it is clearly impossible. Were they then created for damnation? Just a simple yes or no will do.
If St Thomas knows nothing of BOD or BOB in his "Catechetical Instruction", he clearly teaches it in the Summa, did you not read my earlier post?God wills all men to be saved, yes, of course. It is men who, by their own free will, will themselves into damnation. God Himself said that to *not* believe in Him is a sin; John 16:9. This is Divine Revelation, so there is no getting around it.
No, I do not hold that someone can have BOD without faith. But I do hold as absolutely certain that God desires every man to be saved, and that he gives every man the grace to save his soul. The conclusion is obvious. God is not limited by the ordinary means He established for salvation, He sees the heart, and the Almighty acts directly on souls. Faith usually comes by hearing, yes, that is the ordinary way, but with some, it is clearly impossible. Were they then created for damnation? Just a simple yes or no will do.
God wills all men to be saved, yes, of course. It is men who, by their own free will, will themselves into damnation. God Himself said that to *not* believe in Him is a sin; John 16:9. This is Divine Revelation, so there is no getting around it.You know, Stubborn, I think we basically agree on our Catholic Faith. We also agree that no one is damned unless through his own free will. These issues don't really affect how we have to live as Catholics to honour God and get to Heaven, and as you and I know, it is a big enough battle for those of us who have been gifted with the Catholic Faith. So I'm going to call a truce and leave these contested matters to the theologians. 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:
Please note that God did not make nor offer any of the qualifications or exceptions/exemptions that BODers necessarily and absolutely have got to make in order to give a semblance of credence to their idea. He said those who do not believe in Him sin - period.
Because God and the Church are one, those who do not believe Him do not believe in the Church, ergo, they remain outside of the Church until / unless they believe and are baptized otherwise they are condemned, this truth is also Divine Revelation - Mark 16:16.
So don't blame God for those who do not believe, in that arena, you, I, them, indeed all humans are all face the same challenge - which is why we all were created.
If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children.
If there a specific doctrine that states that unconverted Protestants/occultists/joos/musloids/pagans MIGHT be saved at the moment of death even if there was not a single act of conversion made in their life?At the moment of death is still during life (only just, I admit!). It is the rule, that you die as you live. The exception only proves the rule. So please understand me rightly.
Oh, I would never be so audacious and proud as to question St Thomas, Decem. Unless the Church has said otherwise, I believe St Thomas! But God obviously can act directly on souls. As I said to RealMcCoy above, the exception only proves the rule.
PV,
St. Thomas believed that saving faith required belief in the Trinity and Incarnation: i.e., no salvation without the lowest common denominator of the requisite Catholic faith. Do you agree with him in that regard as well?
DR
Faith is a gift from God. I think we need to ask for it. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be open to you. I think if people want the true Faith, God will provide it. I feel bad for people that are not Catholic. I pray for their conversion.I agree wholeheartedly, Vanguard.
The Theological Virtues of faith, hope, and charity (love) are those virtues that relate directly to God. These are not acquired through human effort but, beginning with Baptism, they are infused within us as gifts from God.
You know, Stubborn, I think we basically agree on our Catholic Faith. We also agree that no one is damned unless through his own free will. These issues don't really affect how we have to live as Catholics to honour God and get to Heaven, and as you and I know, it is a big enough battle for those of us who have been gifted with the Catholic Faith. So I'm going to call a truce and leave these contested matters to the theologians. 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:You said above: "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..."
My Catechism of the Council of Trent (Imprimatur 1923) teaches it explicitly, as does this one from 1905 (during the pontificate of Pius X): The catechism of the Council of Trent : published by command of Pope Pius the fifth : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
(https://archive.org/details/CatechismOfTheCouncilOfTrent/page/n127/mode/2up?q=baptism+of+adults)
"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)
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:
"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)
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.
"... their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." (p124,125 of the text)
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.
Well, there are many flavors in between. Some (very few) people believe in the BoD speculation as referring to catechumens who intend to receive Baptism but die first, all the way to the other end of the spectrum where "BoD" means that every nice guy who sort-of implicitly wants to do good can be saved by it.Yes, there are of course many different flavors, which is why I always refer to the idea as "a" BOD. I always figure that covers all flavors lol
How? According to St. Fulgentius, it's because God would keep them alive until they could receive the Sacrament on account of these dispositions.
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)
5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
Huh? Where's the "deprivation" of baptism in such a case?
As I mentioned before, the Catechism seems to be referring to a situation similar to that expressed in the original Rheims annotation to John 3:16:
The "unforeseen accident depriv(ation)" of the Catechism seems much closer to the contemporaneous Rheim 's description where the catechumen "depart(s) this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament."
Sense is that the proper dispositions would avail, prevail over any obstacle that would prevent their reception of the Sacrament. There's no mention of death in the Catechism whatsoever and no indication that if a person died without having received the Sacrament, they could still be saved. This is read into it by those who want to believe in BoD. Here you're trying to read the expression from Rheims about departing this life into the text of the Roman Catechism, and that's completely dishonest, as it's not in the Roman Catechism.
Rheims' statement that God has not bound his grace to any Sacrament is utter nonsense, but that's a side issue.
There isn't any. That's the entire point. And there's no mention of deprivation of Baptism in the Catechism either.
"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)
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml
Here's PV's translation:If in your life you had never heard of such a thing as a BOD, there is no possible way you would ever get it out of the above quote, no way. The same cannot be said for John 3:5.Quote"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)
Says, "deprived." Bad translation?
"Impossible" to be baptized. That translation blows to smithereens your St. Fulgentius interpration, doesn't it?
Completely dishonest? :facepalm:
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.
I could just as easily say that St. Fulgentius has nothing to do with the Catechism and your reading into it.
... 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.
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.
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.
You falsely accused me of reading the St. Fulgentius interpretation into Trent, when I did no such thing.
It's silent about HOW, whether this means keeping them alive until their BaptismJohn McEnroe - You Cannot Be Serious - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIQ-1SUZnw)
Per the title of this thread...Trent does not "teach" BOD. Very true.No, the title of this thread is false. It states that the CATECHISM of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire.
Right. But “grace and justification” are not the sacrament nor are they salvation. You must distinguish.They apparently are not saying that “grace and justification” are a sacrament, rather, they are saying that “grace and justification” is a BOD.
[John McEnroe video] in lieu of actual substance.
Who is 'they'?BODers
The collected works of St Robert Bellarmine is 19 volumes - at least the Roma edition which I have researched here in my hometown (this work is contained at the Baptist Theological Seminary *Thanks a lot to the Novus Ordo heretics who surrendered these volumes to their brother heretics!) The point is, to quote Bellarmine's opinion on unbaptized catechumens, and to create an entire false theology around this opinion, is patently ridiculous. Bellarmine was fighting more heretics than even Augustine, and to conclude that Bellarmine could not be wrong in some of his theological opinions is equally as ridiculous. There is no Church pronouncement which we have seen that confirms unbaptized catechumens as being in paradise; in fact it is mere speculation that such a person exists, aside from the case of the person smacked by the car on his way to the baptismal fount. In fact we have Trent's proclamation that the "sacraments are necessary for salvation." And most would agree that BOD is a non-sacrament.
The catechumen, unbaptized, might very well recite the Athanasian Creed, and firmly assent to all the truths contained therein with his intellect. But he still does not "have" the Faith. He believes the Faith, but he does not have it, because he is not yet sacramentally baptized. Noah believed all that God had revealed to him, in fact, he built the vessel and had the intention of entering it; but he was not safe until he was "inside the ark." And all those outside the ark, who may or may not have had the intention of entering it, were probably damned.
... to conclude that Bellarmine could not be wrong in some of his theological opinions is equally as ridiculous.
The actual incompetent dimwits are the ones who insist that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the clear words of Our Lord Himself which have also been infallibly defined (which we are bound to believe), and the opinions of anyone/everyone else.
Moreso, one would necessarily have to conclude that Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, and other theologians and authorized Catholic writers after Trent were not just wrong, but were incompetent dimwits who completely misunderstood what the council meant in it’s decree on justification, misleading the whole Church for centuries into thinking the council taught BOD, without their interpretation of Trent’s decree ever being corrected or disputed, and without any alternate understanding being proposed by anyone authorized to write on it.
one would necessarily have to conclude that Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, and other theologians and authorized Catholic writers after Trent were not just wrong, but were incompetent dimwits who completely misunderstood what the council meant in it’s decree on justificationChurch Fathers > Renaissance theologians
Moreso, one would necessarily have to conclude that Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, and other theologians and authorized Catholic writers after Trent were not just wrong, but were incompetent dimwits who completely misunderstood what the council meant in it’s decree on justification, misleading the whole Church for centuries into thinking the council taught BOD, without their interpretation of Trent’s decree ever being corrected or disputed, and without any alternate understanding being proposed by anyone authorized to write on it.
Major 1: Water is necessary for baptism (doctrine)
Major 2: Baptism is necessary for salvation (doctrine)
The actual incompetent dimwits are the ones who insist that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the clear words of Our Lord Himself which have also been infallibly defined (which we are bound to believe), and the opinions of anyone/everyone else.I don’t believe you would actually say that the great saints and theologians that taught BOD were incompetent, but consider that the criteria you gave for those who are the actual incompetent dimwits necessarily includes them.
Dishonest and idiotic strawman. Theologians can be wrong about something without having been "incompetent dimwits".Thank you for your kind words.
St. Peter Canisius, a theologian who attended and spoke at the Council of Trent, published a Catechism afterwards that received broad approbation interpreted Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.
Though, again, it’s not just teaching BOD that would make Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, Cornelius a Lapide, et al., incompetent if they were wrong; it’s that they understood Trent’s decree on justification to be teaching BOD. If this decree clearly does not teach BOD, as some modern lay people assert, then Bellarmine, Liguori, et al. grossly misunderstood something that should be clearly understood. That means they were either incompetent or maliciousHere's where Bellarmine, Ligouri, etc were wrong, and it's not due to incompetence or maliciousness, but inexperience. Not theological inexperience, nor lack of sanctity, nor lack of IQ...what they were missing is chaos, spiritual warfare, and human degeneracy. They were missing the "real life" application of this BOD concept.
Here's where Bellarmine, Ligouri, etc were wrong, and it's not due to incompetence or maliciousness, but inexperience. Not theological inexperience, nor lack of sanctity, nor lack of IQ...what they were missing is chaos, spiritual warfare, and human degeneracy. They were missing the "real life" application of this BOD concept.This seems to fall under the third category of explanations, that papal and conciliar decrees are not always so clear that they can't be misunderstood, and can even be misunderstood by the most competent and holiest theologians.
The early Church Fathers lived in times similar to ours. Persecutions, heresies everywhere, antipopes, truth under constant attack. +Bellarmine, +Aquinas, +Alphonsus lived in calmer times, when the Church was not ravaged by spiritual war, when people did NOT question the most basic of truths. Sure, there were heresies of those days, but not to the extent of the early Church nor our times.
So, when +Bellarmine, etc were thinking of BOD, they did not (could not) envision a time when 95% of churchmen believed that Jєωs could be saved, as Jєωs. Or that "all religions are pleasing to God". In other words, their error was in not forseeing/projecting out the conclusions of BOD, which have led to the heresies of universal salvation/implicit faith. In their day, they were simply thinking of the "poor native indians". They were not thinking of the horrors of V2, the coming one-world church and the false ecuмenism of our day.
These are the same people who "piously believed" that God would not allow the pope to fall into heresy. Well, they were totally wrong. God has allowed it. And God has allowed Trent's "justification by desire" to turn into a replacement for baptism, which applies to anyone who "loves God sincerely". They were naive. They couldn't foresee the future. It's not that they were dumb or malicious. They were just unprepared for the 20th century and V2. How could anyone predict this? A crisis unparalleled in all of Church history.
that papal and conciliar decrees are not always so clear that they can't be misunderstood, and can even be misunderstood by the most competent and holiest theologians.The explanations of a council are not infallible. The explanations of a council are not "decrees" or "doctrine". Only the Canons/anathemas are infallible.
Dishonest and idiotic strawman. Theologians can be wrong about something without having been "incompetent dimwits".
St. Peter Canisius, a theologian who attended and spoke at the Council of Trent, published a Catechism afterwards that received broad approbation interpreted Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.
5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
The explanations of a council are not infallible. The explanations of a council are not "decrees" or "doctrine". Only the Canons/anathemas are infallible.That would seem to be a valid fourth explanation. Can you point to any Catholic sources that explain that some of what a council publishes on doctrine is not infallible, and that the other infallible parts are protected from being misunderstood by anyone?
So, no, a council's decrees/canons/anathemas are doctrine and cannot be misunderstood but must be read literally and simply. That's how they are written.
But, yes, a council's explanations can be misunderstood because these are not necessarily totally correct, or totally explained, or fully proven. BOD is not a doctrine, or anathematized, or infallible. It was part of an explanation and it was mentioned in passing. There was not even 1 single sentence dedicated to the idea. To say it was "unexplained" is a colossal understatement. In the grand context of the council it was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it idea.
Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.Rheims contradicts himself, and Trent's canon. He says water is necessary, then says it's not.
If God "accepts them as baptized," and they are saved, then baptism retains its necessity.Trent does not support this ideal. In fact, it condemns it, by stating that 1) baptism is necessary and 2) water is essential to baptism.
Can you point to any Catholic sources that explain that some of what a council publishes on doctrine is not infallible, and that the other infallible parts are protected from being misunderstood by anyone?Yes. Have to dig these up.
Thank you for your kind words.
If by "strawman" you mean incompetency isn't the only explanation, I agree.
Here's where Bellarmine, Ligouri, etc were wrong, and it's not due to incompetence or maliciousness, but inexperience. Not theological inexperience, nor lack of sanctity, nor lack of IQ...what they were missing is chaos, spiritual warfare, and human degeneracy. They were missing the "real life" application of this BOD concept.
I'll quote the Rheims annotation of John 3:5 again:
If God "accepts them as baptized," and they are saved, then baptism retains its necessity.
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong ; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re ; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. *(footnote: * Summa 3, Q. G8, a. 2. corp. ad 2. et ad 3.)
Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, &c, in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re ; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for any thing more than this ; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them as belonging in effect to the body, as they certainly do, than it is to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul; for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is possible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition.
http://orestesbrownson.org/210.html
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general.So here, Rheims correctly upholds Catholic dogma and says that water is absolutely necessary.
Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament,Then Rheims contradicts himself and Trent by this statement, which is totally false. God has, and does, bind his graces to sacraments. Trent and Scripture infallibly tell us this.
may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.If one reads the Church Fathers on baptism of blood, they consistently say that those who die for the Faith, are baptized by their own blood (and the angels baptize say the form and the blood takes the place of water as the matter of the sacrament). "Baptism of blood" is nothing more than being "baptized by blood". In other words, the Church Fathers understood BoB = baptism. It was actual baptism. It was a sacrament.
Can you cite a text where St. Peter Canisius "ruled out" salvation for catechumens who died before baptism, which is what those who read the Catechism in favor of BOD argue?
Here's the same idea from Orestes Brownson:
Yes, and the key difference is the following:
Thus, water baptism is necessary for salvation. BOD just provides grace/justification.
Then Rheims contradicts himself and Trent by this statement, which is totally false. God has, and does, bind his graces to sacraments.
"The affair of the slave Augustina, who served in the house of Captain Vincente de Villalobos, was one of the strangest in the life of Claver...When Augustina was in her last agony Villalobos went in search of Claver. When the latter arrived the body was already being prepared for the shroud and he found it cold to the touch. His expression suddenly changed and he amazed everyone by crying aloud, "Augustina, Augustina." He sprinkled her with holy water, he knelt by her, and prayed for an hour. Suddenly the supposedly dead woman began to move...All fell on their knees. Augustina stared at Claver, and as if awakening from a deep sleep said, "Jesus, Jesus, how tired I am!" Claver told her to pray with all her heart and repent her sins, but those standing by, moved by curiosity, begged him to ask her where she came from. He did so, and she said these words: "I am come from journeying along a long road. It was a beautiful road, and after I had gone a long way down it I met a white man of great beauty who stood before me and said, 'Stop, you cannot go further.' I asked him what I should do, and he replied, 'Go back the way you have come, to the house you have left.' This I have done, but I cannot tell how." On hearing this Claver told them all to leave the room and leave him alone with her because he wished to hear her confession. He prepared her and told her that complete confession of her sins was of immense importance if she wanted to enter that paradise of which she had had a glimpse. She obeyed him, and as he heard her confession it became clear to Claver that she was not baptized. He straightway ordered water to be brought, and a candle and a crucifix. Her owners answered that they had had Augustina in their house for twenty years and that she behaved in all things like themselves. She had gone to confession, to Mass, and performed all her Christian duties, and therefore she did not need Baptism, nor could she receive it. But Claver was certain that they were wrong and insisted, baptizing her in the presence of all, to the great delight of her soul and his, for a few minutes after she had received the sacraments she died in the presence of the whole family."
-- Peter Claver: Saint of the Slaves, Fr. Angel Valltiera, S.J., Burns and Oates, London, 1960, pp. 221,222.
Yes, and the key difference is the following:
Water Baptism = The Sacrament of Baptism = Salvation (when one perseveres in state of justification until death)
vs.
BOD = extra-Sacramental repentance/cleansing = Justification (when one perseveres in that state until death)
The Sacrament of Baptism provides forgiveness of ALL past sins AS WELL AS the remission of ALL TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT for those sins.
BOD provides forgiveness of all past sins, but DOES NOT provide remission of temporal punishment for those sins.
So, a person receiving the Sacrament of Baptism and not committing another sin before his death, goes straight to Heaven. A person "receiving" BOD and not committing another sin before his death, goes, at best, to Purgatory because he still has to pay off his debt for his sins committed prior to "receiving" BOD. Both people, ultimately, make it to Heaven. But one just takes the detour to Purgatory first.
Therefore, "salvation" means complete avoidance of any kind of Purgatory (salvation from the fires of Hell). It is only possible for a Catholic with the assistance of the Sacraments to have the hope that they can avoid Purgatory.
Justification means the state of righteousness (potentially just momentary) that, if persevered in until death, will be good enough to get a person at least into Purgatory but never straight to Heaven.
An unjustified person goes to Hell.
Said another way:
Saved (Sacramentally-cleansed, state of grace, and no temporal debt) = Heaven-bound
Merely Justified (state of grace but temporal debt still remaining) = Purgatory-bound
Unjustified (state of mortal sin) = Hell-bound
Therefore, "salvation" means complete avoidance of any kind of Purgatory (salvation from the fires of Hell).
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean, but in your argument you were making the assertion that if one did not agree with St. Alphonsus' interpretation of Trent (but that of St. Peter Canisius, who was actually at the Council and spoke at it), this means that (we hold that) St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus were "incompetent dimwits". That's a strawman in your attribution of this to us, and idiotic in that you make this absurd false dichotomy where if you're not 100% correct about everything, that must mean you're an "incompetent dimwit".As I said, I was thinking of those who say Trent's decree on justification is so clear it can't be misunderstood. If that's true, then that makes anyone who misunderstands it an incompetent dimwit or malicious. It's my fault for not stating that, but a charitable reply from you would have been to point out that those aren't the only two explanations, and that conciliar decrees can be misunderstood by even the greatest theologians. Or you could have offered Pax's explanation that some things on doctrine published by a council are guaranteed from being misunderstood, and Session 6 Chapter 4 doesn't fall into that category. Instead of addressing the intellect, you attacked the will, immediately calling me dishonest. I obviously don't post here often, but I occasionally spend time reading the discussions, and I've noticed you consistently attribute ill will to those who write something you disagree with.
That's as dishonest as it is idiotic.
Nearly every line of this post is completely made up out of thin air, this notion that BoD does not provide remission of temporal punishment due to sin. Why not? Just because you guys made this up? It's fabricated out of thin air.
You have a couple of real problems there. Trent defined initial justification as a rebirth or regeneration, and rebirth / regeneration (as the name indicates) entails the complete remission of all sin and all punishment due to sin. One of the Popes who opined in favor of BoD stated that "such a one" would enter Heaven "without delay". In fact, that statement was made in a letter that was very similar to the one that St. Alphonsus said made BoD de fide. If that's the case, then this position of non-remission of temporal punishment, is also heretical. This is a mess.
Until you provide evidence for your claims,Plenty of evidence on this site. Do a good search and you'll find plenty. Or just start with Trent and read the whole council. It's not that long. It'll do you some good.
I don’t believe you would actually say that the great saints and theologians that taught BOD were incompetent, but consider that the criteria you gave for those who are the actual incompetent dimwits necessarily includes them.You miss the point completely.
Though, again, it’s not just teaching BOD that would make Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, Cornelius a Lapide, et al., incompetent if they were wrong; it’s that they understood Trent’s decree on justification to be teaching BOD. If this decree clearly does not teach BOD, as some modern lay people assert, then Bellarmine, Liguori, et al. grossly misunderstood something that should be clearly understood. That means they were either incompetent or malicious
Or, it means Trent's decree on justification does not clearly teach something other than BOD, and that conciliar decrees can be misunderstood, even by the most competent and holiest theologians.
One of the Popes who opined in favor of BoD stated that "such a one" would enter Heaven "without delay". In fact, that statement was made in a letter that was very similar to the one that St. Alphonsus said made BoD de fide. If that's the case, then this position of non-remission of temporal punishment, is also heretical. This is a mess.
He wasn't writing about the Catechism. He was writing IN his catechism about Trent itself. He cited Trent that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for adults and then made two citations in the footnote, and both the passages were explicit statements from the Church Fathers that even good catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be saved.
10:45 - 12:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCfbFDcIGSw
What letter and pope was that?
Pope Innocent III, to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: “We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.,” the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.”
Instead of addressing the intellect, you attacked the will, immediately calling me dishonest. I obviously don't post here often, but I occasionally spend time reading the discussions, and I've noticed you consistently attribute ill will to those who write something you disagree with.
It was this letter here, usually cited as evidence in favor of BoD:
There's a good discusson of this letter at ...
[VATICAN CATHOLIC DOT COM]/pope-innocent-iii-baptism-of-desire/
I didn't say St. Peter Canisius was writing about the Catechism. Read better.
Until you provide evidence for your claims, I guess one could say that your claims are also "fabricated out of thin air."
Until you provide evidence for your claims, I guess one could say that your claims are also "fabricated out of thin air."
1. Show us where it says that "justification...entails the complete remission of all temporal punishment for sin" in Trent.
2. Show us where "one of the Popes" stated exactly what you claim.
3. Show us where it is "heretical" to say that BOD could require expiation of temporal debt in Purgatory.
Otherwise, someone might say that you just "made this up" and say of your comments: "this is a mess."
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”
Then you need to write better, because you conflated your obsession with the Roman Catechism with St. Peter Canisius, even though there's currently no known link between the two ... not unlike when you tried to conflate the Rheims comment with the Catechism.
Can you cite a text where St. Peter Canisius "ruled out" salvation for catechumens who died before baptism, which is what those who read the Catechism in favor of BOD argue?
That would seem to be a valid fourth explanation. Can you point to any Catholic sources that explain that some of what a council publishes on doctrine is not infallible, and that the other infallible parts are protected from being misunderstood by anyone?This explanation doesn't work either. It has to presume St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and the rest only read the explanations, and didn't read the canons/anathemas, which is absurd. Even if it was true that the Council's explanations aren't protected from being misunderstood, but its canons/anathemas are, those saints and theologians obviously didn't understand those canons/anathemas as being contrary to BOD. If those canons/anathemas are clearly contrary to BOD and guaranteed from being misunderstood, then St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, and the rest still misunderstood what is guaranteed from being misunderstood.
These two passages from Trent cited by the Dimond Brothers completely destroy the notion that there can be [initial] justification without remission of all punishment due to sin:
Simple syllogism. Initial Justification (vs. justification of the fallen in Confession) requires being born again. Being born again means that there is nothing in someone that God hates so much so that "nothing may delay them from entry into heaven" (echoing Innocent III here)
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076
For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong ; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re ; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. *(footnote: * Summa 3, Q. G8, a. 2. corp. ad 2. et ad 3.)
Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, &c, in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re ; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for any thing more than this ; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them as belonging in effect to the body, as they certainly do, than it is to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul; for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is possible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition.
http://orestesbrownson.org/210.html
The Church has indicated that a BOD can avail to grace and righteousness, i.e. justification. And it has indicated that anyone who dies justified is saved. As I've said before, that's a simple concept that is Church teaching.A church teaching cannot be "indicated". It has to be clearly taught, with apostolic authority and heretical penalties for unacceptance. To date, no such thing exists. Therefore, it's not a teaching but a 'pious belief' and/or 'theological theory'.
False. You laid out this fanciful narrative about temporal punishment due to sin not being remitted by BoD. Since you made these assertions, you prove them. I can't and don't have to prove a negative.
Show me a single proof for your made-up narrative about temporal punishment due to sin not being forgiven by BoD.
You won't find any because there isn't any. This is completely made up out of thin air.
Now, we do know that St. Alphonsus held this opinion, so my criticism of your post is at the same time a criticism of St. Alphonsus. There is no proof that BoD does not remit temporal punishment due to sin.
I'll find the video from the Dimonds on Trent. As Our Lord taught, one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless one has been BORN AGAIN. Rebirth means a complete regeneration (as Trent defines it also), including remission of all temporal punishment due to sin. Trent makes that clear. So if there's such a thing as BoD, it must be a rebirth or regenerations, and thus it must remit all temporal punishment due to sin. This is yet another error made by St. Alphonsus on this matter. I believe that St. Alphonsus was a bit too enamored of some Jesuits in his day, such as De Lugo, and even grants the latter's opinion regarding the possibility of salvation for infidels as "probable" (their word for "possible") ... though not holding it himself ... just because he had a high opinion of De Lugo. But De Lugo's opinion was horrible and rejected 1500 years of teaching that explicit knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for salvation.
Now, this was before the infallibiilty of the OUM had been defined by Vatican I, but if a teaching that was unanimously held and taught by the Fathers, and by all Catholics, for 1500 years is not infallibly taught by the OUM, then there's no such thing as the infallibility of the OUM. Nobody doubted this teaching for 1500 years until a Franciscan and a few Jesuits came along and complete made up "Rewarder God" theory out of thin air ... so they could get the newly-discovered Native Americans saved somehow.
If it's not OK for us to reject BoD on the grounds that nearly all theologians have held it for the last 400 years, then why is it OK for these guys to come along and reject 1500 years of teaching to the contrary of their opinion?
Also, the Holy Office upheld the teaching that knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary by necessity of means for salvation.
If I believed in BoD, I would have to concur with Innocent III that it remits temporal punishment due to sin also.
There can be no entry into the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again. Rebirth clearly means regeneration (where the entire creature is renewed), and Trent taught that initial justification is a regeneration and then that regeneration entails complete remission of all sin and of all punishment due to sin.
This made-up theory that BoD doesn't remit temporal punishment due to sin is highly problematic.
This here is an extremely solid argument that I can find no fault with, except that it doesn't refute BoD per se, but does clearly refute the notion of BoD that holds temporal punishment is not remitted by it:
[VATICAN CATHOLIC DOT COM]/man-must-regenerated-refutes-baptism-desire/
So you use an "the letter of a Pope" as your authority. That's fine. Then, you reject the Pope's primary point (that BoD is part of Catholic Magisterium) as having no authority. But you accept the Pope's secondary point (that BoD sends the person directly to Heaven). You then use his secondary point, which is dependent on the primary point, to determine what is a heretical in what I said.:confused: His point is, isn't a Pope's magisterium greater than St Alphonsus' opinion? Yes. So, if one is a BOD'er, then to contradict the Pope would be heresy.
These two passages from Trent cited by the Dimond Brothers completely destroy the notion that there can be [initial] justification without remission of all punishment due to sin:Those "two passages from Trent" that you quote from Session 6, Chapter 3 are further qualified in Chapter 4 directly below that, where Trent discusses the "bath of regeneration or the desire for it."
Simple syllogism. Initial Justification (vs. justification of the fallen in Confession) requires being born again. Being born again means that there is nothing in someone that God hates so much so that "nothing may delay them from entry into heaven" (echoing Innocent III here)
:confused: His point is, isn't a Pope's magisterium greater than St Alphonsus' opinion? Yes. So, if one is a BOD'er, then to contradict the Pope would be heresy.
You say that purgatory is required of BOD. The pope says no. Ergo, in the BOD world, you are a heretic.
Angelus, are you actually arguing that the "state of grace" post-baptism is the same as post-confession? :facepalm:
Here's the simple problem with your view on BOD: If St Alphonsus contradicts Pope Innocent on BOD, one of them is MAJORLY wrong. Logic would tell us that the Pope's teaching is greater, so St Alphonsus is wrong. Since you agree with St Alphonsus, that also makes you wrong.
This serious contradiction is what Ladislaus is pointing out.
St. Alphonsus is a Doctor of the Church. Is Pope Innocent a Doctor of the Church?
A single Pope's teaching is not necessarily greater than the teaching of a Doctor of the Church. You really need to understand the concept of the Magisterium better. There are only two types of INFALLIBLE Magisterium: 1) Extraordinary and 2) Ordinary and Universal. The other level of Magisterium, called the "Authentic Magisterium" of a particular Pope is not and has never been held by the Church to be INFALLIBLE.
Ok, so you're saying that Trent/St Alphonsus are to be followed on BOD and everyone else (St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine, Pope Innocent III, etc) are to be rejected?
How can you ask such a question after saying the following a few posts back?
"If BOD'ers would simply try to explain it ONLY using Trent's words, I think the theory would be drastically different than is understood today. Most of them have never read the entire section on justification so they don't even know how Trent defines it."
So I then, "explain it ONLY using Trent's words" and you ask me if Trent is to be followed and other commentators rejected?
Yes, the Council of Trent is an Ecuмenical Council. Its decrees and explanations (like the one on "baptism...ad the desire for it") are trustworthy, even when those explanations don't rise to the level of the Extraordinary Magisterium. They are, at the very least, expressions of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Equally trustworthy are the statements of St. Alphonsus on this matter.
:facepalm: Papal Magisterium outweighs any opinion of a Doctor of the Church. He's only a Doctor because some Pope designated him a Doctor. And you're trying to lecture us condescendingly about needing to understand the Magisterium? So a single Pope's opinion is not infallible but that of a Doctor is? But you have a conundrum, because this Doctor of the Church declared that a similar letter by Pope Innocent II was infallible. Or maybe the Pope was not infallible in making St. Alphonsus a Doctor of the Church. What a hot mess.
But even you would have to recognize that the Council of Trent trumps a Doctor of the Church, and the teaching is clear.
There's no initial justification without rebirth/regeneration.
Rebirth/regeneration puts the soul into a state that it would enter heaven immediately and without delay, without any stain or punishment due to sin remaining.
Apart from that, St. Alphonsus has zero proof for his assertion that BoD does not remit temporal punishment do to sin. That's merely his speculation ... and it's clearly wrong when compared against the teaching of the Council of Trent. But perhaps you'll claim now that St. Alphonsus trumps the Council of Trent too.
You need to stop posting, because you're only discrediting the BoD position with your ignorance.
:facepalm: Papal Magisterium outweighs any opinion of a Doctor of the Church. He's only a Doctor because some Pope designated him a Doctor. And you're trying to lecture us condescendingly about needing to understand the Magisterium? So a single Pope's opinion is not infallible but that of a Doctor is? But you have a conundrum, because this Doctor of the Church declared that a similar letter by Pope Innocent II was infallible. Or maybe the Pope was not infallible in making St. Alphonsus a Doctor of the Church. What a hot mess.
But even you would have to recognize that the Council of Trent trumps a Doctor of the Church, and the teaching is clear.
There's no initial justification without rebirth/regeneration.
Rebirth/regeneration puts the soul into a state that it would enter heaven immediately and without delay, without any stain or punishment due to sin remaining.
Apart from that, St. Alphonsus has zero proof for his assertion that BoD does not remit temporal punishment do to sin. That's merely his speculation ... and it's clearly wrong when compared against the teaching of the Council of Trent. But perhaps you'll claim now that St. Alphonsus trumps the Council of Trent too.
Angelus, you are proving that what you believe about BOD is different from the other BOD posters (just on this thread). Some follow St Thomas, or St Augustine, or St Bellarmine, or Rheims, etc. There is no consistent view on how BOD works. That's the ultimate issue.
You said Trent was "trustworthy" and so was St Alphonsus. Then you say St Alphonsus isn't infallible but you imply Trent is infallible. :confused::confused:
This is next level trolling, Angelus. Well done.
Okay. Agreed, "there is no consistent view on how BOD works" among the posters on the website. But whatever the actual Catholic teaching is MUST NOT CONTRADICT Trent. If the statement contradicts Trent, it would be heretical.Thank you for being open and honest. Most pro-BOD'ers would not agree with the above. In fact, (in my opinion) Fr Feeney would even agree with the above. Because all we can say, with doctrinal certainty, is that BOD = justification (but not salvation). This was Fr Feeney's entire point ... that justification is not salvation. !!!!
Many of statements of other authoritative commentators quoted on this website (including Popes and Doctors) are in the realm of "theological speculation." They are not part of the infallible Magisterium as Trent is. But it is possible (and I think certain) that Trent intentionally left some specifics unanswered. This kind of thing happens when all the participants at a Council cannot agree on the precise language on a topic. So, there is still wiggle room for theological speculation after Trent, but the wiggle room is smaller than it was before Trent.
Trent clearly states that "the desire for [baptism]" confers "Justification." Trent did not say "the desire for Baptism" confers "'Salvation." This is an important distinction. Also, the exact definition of "the desire for baptism" is not provided in Trent. Does that refer to "explicit" or "implicit" desire. That question was left in the realm of theological discussion after Trent.
To restate the same. Justification puts one in a "state of grace." A state of grace has two possible options: 1) no temporal debt remaining or 2) temporal debt still remaining. If he person dies in number 1, he goes straight to Heaven. If a person dies in number 2, he goes to Purgatory.There is a third option, which the Church Fathers inferred many times (when they said someone was "washed" but "not crowned"), which is Limbo of the Just. BOD does not provide the sacramental character, the wedding garment, which is necessary for either purgatory/Heaven. Ultimately, this is the main problem of saying that BOD'ers can get to heaven.
There is a third option, which the Church Fathers inferred many times (when they said someone was "washed" but "not crowned"), which is Limbo of the Just. BOD does not provide the sacramental character, the wedding garment, which is necessary for either purgatory/Heaven. Ultimately, this is the main problem of saying that BOD'ers can get to heaven.
The analogy of the wedding garment is from Scripture, where Christ explains that you either have one or not. Those that don't have one, cannot stay at the wedding feast (i.e. salvation) and are "cast out into the darkness" (i.e. hell).
The analogy never includes clean vs dirty.
So I think the two interpretations are not far off.The wedding feast parable is not similar to the Apocalypse robes of the Just. The Haydock bible does not make this connection. Unless some other saint does? It's new to me.
But I think that a baptized soul in a state of grace is in the same situation of cleanness as a justified soul in a state of grace. Both the baptized soul and the justified soul (BoD) are clean at the moment of regeneration but can lose their state of grace.Then you are minimizing the purpose/effects of the baptismal character, the same as the Protestants, who believed we can be saved by "faith (desire) alone". Trent even anathamatizes those who say that baptism does not impart a character on the soul. If Trent went so far as to point out this necessary aspect of Baptism, then we can't brush it aside and say that BOD justification = baptismal state of grace. Apples vs bananas.
The wedding feast parable is not similar to the Apocalypse robes of the Just. The Haydock bible does not make this connection.
Then you are minimizing the purpose/effects of the baptismal character, the same as the Protestants, who believed we can be saved by "faith (desire) alone". Trent even anathamatizes those who say that baptism does not impart a character on the soul. If Trent went so far as to point out this necessary aspect of Baptism, then we can't brush it aside and say that BOD justification = baptismal state of grace. Apples vs bananas.
If BOD isn’t a substitute then you can’t say that it gets you to heaven. Trent says that only the sacrament gets us to heaven. So the Everest analogy does not jive with Trent. You should say “I don’t know if they make it to the top of mountain (heaven) or not.” None of us knows. Not until the Church makes it clear.
"Trent says that only the sacrament gets us to heaven."
The beginning of Session 7 Council of Trent: "The most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true justification begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is restored."
Here's the logic from Trent:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Major 1: Water is necessary for baptism (doctrine)
Major 2: Baptism is necessary for salvation (doctrine)
Minor 1: BOD is not a sacrament, nor does it replace water baptism (fact)
Minor 2: Trent mentions "desire" in the section on justification.
Conclusion 1: Water is necessary, as part of baptism, for salvation.
Conclusion 2: BOD can provide justification but not salvation, because it's not a sacrament.
Conclusion 3: What happens to those who die justified but pre-baptism? Trent does not say. In absence of Trent's guidance, we cannot say that BOD justification provides heaven.
Here's the logic from Trent:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Major 1: Water is necessary for baptism (doctrine)
Major 2: Baptism is necessary for salvation (doctrine)
Minor 1: BOD is not a sacrament, nor does it replace water baptism (fact)
Minor 2: Trent mentions "desire" in the section on justification.
Conclusion 1: Water is necessary, as part of baptism, for salvation.
Conclusion 2: BOD can provide justification but not salvation, because it's not a sacrament.
Conclusion 3: What happens to those who die justified but pre-baptism? Trent does not say. In absence of Trent's guidance, we cannot say that BOD justification provides heaven.
Sorry. Nowhere in what you quoted from Trent does it say that "only the sacrament gets us to heaven." It says that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.Heaven = salvation. Baptism = necessary for salvation/heaven. Same thing.
The word "salvation" can mean salvation from eternal Hell, but with a detour through Purgatory first.Ok, but Purgatory is not an eternal place; it ends when the world ends. Thus, there are only 2 "ending spots" - heaven or hell.
Or it can mean salvation from all punishment in the afterlife, meaning no Purgatory.So no purgatory = go directly to heaven. Salvation = Heaven.
I believe that Canon V is using "salvation" in the second sense. Trent does not specify, so we just don't know from Canon V itself, which sense was intended.First sense or second sense...it doesn't matter. The end result is Heaven. Salvation = Heaven.
Trent clearly states that "the desire for [baptism]" confers "Justification." Trent did not say "the desire for Baptism" confers "'Salvation." This is an important distinction. Also, the exact definition of "the desire for baptism" is not provided in Trent. Does that refer to "explicit" or "implicit" desire. That question was left in the realm of theological discussion after Trent.This is wrong Angelus, this is where BODers go off the wall.
Trent never even says anywhere that justification is conferred with the sacrament itself,I think you misworded this.
Sorry. Nowhere in what you quoted from Trent does it say that "only the sacrament gets us to heaven." It says that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
The word "salvation" can mean salvation from eternal Hell, but with a detour through Purgatory first. Or it can mean salvation from all punishment in the afterlife, meaning no Purgatory. I believe that Canon V is using "salvation" in the second sense. Trent does not specify, so we just don't know from Canon V itself, which sense was intended.
I think you misworded this.No Pax, Trent never says that justification is conferred with the sacrament itself, only that without them, justification cannot be attained. Trent puts it this way, presumably, because one may partake of the sacraments unworthily hence sacrilegiously.
Trent never says that justification is conferred with the sacrament itselfYou're still poorly wording this idea. As is, what you wrote is wrong. A sacrament doesn't give justification/grace? That's their essential purpose! That's the only reason they exist.
No Pax, Trent never says that justification is conferred with the sacrament itself, only that without them, justification cannot be attained. Trent puts it this way, presumably, because one may partake of the sacraments unworthily hence sacrilegiously.
BODers see "no sacrament/no desire = no justification" - as "desire / no sacrament = justification."
To BODers, desire equals certain justification, which is not what Trent says.
Right, the text itself says that there can be no justification without the Sacrament or the desire to receive it. What's at issue is that there are two interpretations of this, with the BoDers hold that this means "either ... or", and anti-BoDers that it means (when flipped back to positive terms) "and".
"We cannot have the wedding without the bride or the groom". This clearly means that both are required and not that either one would suffice. (non-BoD interpretation)
"I cannot write a letter without a pen or a pencil." This clearly means that either one would suffice. (BoD interpretation)
I've gone through and examined both possibilities and I find huge problems with the EITHER ... OR reading that I can get into later.
So say you and Stubborn, etc. Yet if there can't be justification without both the water AND the desire, what about children? They are justified by the water, and do not have the desire. Yet they are justified.
I can anticipate your possible answer, but I'll wait to hear from you.
You're still poorly wording this idea. As is, what you wrote is wrong. A sacrament doesn't give justification/grace? That's their essential purpose! That's the only reason they exist.Ok, the way Trent worded it the way they did, is because the sacraments may be received unworthily, as such Trent never says there is certainty of justification or salvation, only that without them there is no justification. They worded it the same way when they mention a desire for the sacraments.
Uhm, the answer is obvious, because this section is explicitly referring to the justification of adults, and says so at the beginning and then spends many paragraphs discussing the necessary dispositions to receive the Sarament of Baptism before this particular sentence.
CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His 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.
CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults . . .
what about children? They are justified by the water, and do not have the desire.That's why the Church has Godparents. They make a promise to raise the child Catholic if the parents are lax. The Godparents also provide the desire, as a proxy, for the child.
It sure doesn't appear obvious that it applies only to adults, but the contrary appears obvious, i.e. that it applies to all men.
That's why the Church has Godparents. They make a promise to raise the child Catholic if the parents are lax. The Godparents also provide the desire, as a proxy, for the child.
It's also why the Church forbids baptism of children into non-catholic/anti-catholic homes. Desire is necessary.
That's why the Church has Godparents. They make a promise to raise the child Catholic if the parents are lax. The Godparents also provide the desire, as a proxy, for the child.
It's also why the Church forbids baptism of children into non-catholic/anti-catholic homes. Desire is necessary.
That term "impious" right before the disputed statement is a theological term never applied to those only in Original Sin. Session VI (this decree) was about justification of adults. Session V dealt with the justification of infants through Baptism.
Aside from that, St. Alphonsus says that any necessary votum is supplied in infant Baptism by the parents/godparents. This is why you can't baptize an infant against the wishes of the parents unless he's in danger of death, in which case the Church supplies the votum. Why do you think that in Baptism, the "infant" is asked, "What do you seek from the Church?" "Do you wish to be baptized?" Godparents then respond on behalf of the infant. So you need to try something else.
So the Church, or the godparents, provide what is lacking in the infant (the vow, the desire),Yes, because the Church tells us this is allowable.
but the Holy Ghost can't supply for a lack of water?The Church has never said this is possible.
... but the Holy Ghost can't supply for a lack of water?
Hello everyone, just to let everyone know Friarminor isn't associated or support any group out there.If anyone is confused about this, you should contact Friarminor on twitter, he would be happy to help. Take care everybody.
https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1623510195476340736?s=20
So when Our Lord said that no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he has been born (again) of water AND the Holy Ghost, He really meant of water OR the Holy Ghost?Our Lord also said "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you". Are there exceptions? Does desire suffice in certain circuмstances, even implicit?
But instead we render it as, "Justification can happen with the laver or else just the votum (Holy Ghost), since Our Lord taught that water and the Holy Ghost are required." That's absurd.Is it not many orders of magnitude more absurd that any Catholic could prefer his understanding of Trent to the plethora of learned Doctors and theologians who understand Trent to be teaching Baptism of Desire, the same doctrine taught by the Angelic Doctor, whose Summa was so venerated at the Council, and the Fathers and Doctors of old?
Is it not many orders of magnitude more absurd that any Catholic could prefer his understanding of Trent to the plethora of learned Doctors and theologians who understand Trent to be teaching Baptism of Desire, the same doctrine taught by the Angelic Doctor, whose Summa was so venerated at the Council, and the Fathers and Doctors of old?
It is just impossible to find a Catholic resource that specifically treats of Baptism of Desire that condemns it, just as it is so easy to find an exposition of the Catholic Faith that affirms it.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott teaches under the heading "The Necessity of Baptism", "2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism: In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)" There follows a half page explanation. Is there a theology manual that condemns it? Is there a theology manual that pronounces it condemned by the Council of Trent?
So believing all of the above, why go on and on about a BOD, which wholly eliminates God's providence in the matter? "Without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5Thanks Stubborn. But here's the point. I don't. The Fathers, Doctors, theologians, theology manuals and Catholic doctrinal texts do.
Thanks Stubborn. But here's the point. I don't. The Fathers, Doctors, theologians, theology manuals and Catholic doctrinal texts do.You don't believe in a BOD or God's Providence in the matter? I presume you don't believe in a BOD.
For anyone to presume that a sacrament can exist in voto is, in reality, the denial of the definition of the term sacrament, which is, 'a sensible sign, instituted by Christ, which gives sanctifying grace.' Just imagine a man receiving the graces of Marriage because he had a 'votum' to receive marriage. The whole idea is theologically ridiculous. None of the sacraments can be had by desire, and the only remote example which comes to mind is making an act of perfect contrition in place of sacramental confession, which supplies the grace in place of the sacrament. But to my mind the Church has never defined "perfect contrition," but theologians have spoken of it. But "perfect contrition" presumes that one has been previously sacramentally baptized.
Another serious problem with the BoDer rendering.
Corollary to your reading is that justification CAN happen WITHOUT the laver, without the Sacrament. That would be heretical by Trent's own condemnation. It would be one thing to say that an individual can receive the Sacrament in voto and quite another (heretical) thing to say that justification (and therefore salvation) can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament.
So Trent is implying the same heresy that it elsewhere condemns?
My reading? We're arguing about catechumen and whether they can be justified without receiving the sacrament per the Catechism of Trent. They desire the sacrament.
Straw manning again? You must be a hay farmer.
Is it not many orders of magnitude more absurd that any Catholic could prefer his understanding of Trent to the plethora of learned Doctors and theologians who understand Trent to be teaching Baptism of Desire, the same doctrine taught by the Angelic Doctor, whose Summa was so venerated at the Council, and the Fathers and Doctors of old?
Another serious problem with the BoDer rendering.
Corollary to your reading is that justification CAN happen WITHOUT the laver, without the Sacrament. That would be heretical by Trent's own condemnation. It would be one thing to say that an individual can receive the Sacrament in voto and quite another (heretical) thing to say that justification (and therefore salvation) can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament.
So Trent is implying the same heresy that it elsewhere condemns?
Plethora my foot.
:facepalm:
So who is “your” again? You were replying to me in the post prior to that one.
No Pax, Trent never says that justification is conferred with the sacrament itself, only that without them, justification cannot be attained. Trent puts it this way, presumably, because one may partake of the sacraments unworthily hence sacrilegiously.Not sure if it's been mentioned, from; CHAPTER VII. What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
BODers see "no sacrament/no desire = no justification" - as "desire / no sacrament = justification."
To BODers, desire equals certain justification, which is not what Trent says.
Not sure if it's been mentioned, from; CHAPTER VII. What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof..
"the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified"
I don't see how the other guy can say that BoD justifies, when the sacrament (which also requires water) is required for justification as this decree states. Please correct me if I am wrong or have misunderstood something.
.The problem I have with that, is that Trent states that, "no man was ever justified" without "faith", and calls the sacrament of baptism the "sacrament of faith".
Instrumental causes can be substituted for. The substitutable nature of instrumental causes is essentially the explanation the Angelic Doctor gives for how BoD works.
The problem I have with that, is that Trent states that, "no man was ever justified" without "faith", and calls the sacrament of baptism the "sacrament of faith"..
If the instrumental cause here (water baptism) can be substituted, then that substitution must also give "faith" or else it does not justify. Are there any decrees/infallible statements referring to BoD as giving faith?
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
According to Trent, faith does not only ever come from baptism, but before baptism, when it comes "from hearing" as a divine aid to justification: (Session 6, chap. 5)
.
According to Trent, faith does not only ever come from baptism, but before baptism, when it comes "from hearing" as a divine aid to justification: (Session 6, chap. 5)
.
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
If BoD somehow gives the supernatural virtue of 'faith' then it would reduce the importance of the sacrament of baptism.Agree. BOD cannot provide supernatural Faith, as this is only available from Baptism, from God. No human can will/desire to have anything supernatural, because we aren't God and supernatural things are above us. If we say that BOD can provide supernatural Faith, then we are espousing the same error of "salvation by Faith" that the protestants support, who say one can gain salvation by human means (which was condemned by Trent).
This is referring to what theologians called fides initialis, a natural analogue to supernatural faith that precedes justification..
excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promisedNote that clearly supernatural hope and charity are described to follow from the same faith therein described. Would you maintain supernatural charity can be had without supernatural faith?
Mith,I do, thank you.
Right. But I think you meant Chapter 6:
This is consistent with the Catechism: if a catechumen were to die in such a state, he would be saved.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearingThis is not referring to supernatural faith, which only God can provide. If we say that BOD can provide supernatural Faith (or that one can have supernatural faith before Baptism), then we are espousing the same error of "salvation by Faith" that the protestants support, who say one can gain salvation by human means (which was condemned by Trent).
This is not referring to supernatural faith, which only God can provide. If we say that BOD can provide supernatural Faith (or that one can have supernatural faith before Baptism), then we are espousing the same error of "salvation by Faith" that the protestants support, who say one can gain salvation by human means (which was condemned by Trent)..
This is not referring to supernatural faith, which only God can provide. If we say that BOD can provide supernatural Faith (or that one can have supernatural faith before Baptism), then we are espousing the same error of "salvation by Faith" that the protestants support, who say one can gain salvation by human means (which was condemned by Trent).:facepalm:
There are a large segment of Prots - Calvinists - who believe salvation is by faith alone and not gained by human means at all.Trent defined "human means" as being outside the sacrament. Or, natural faith. Or, human faith.
Trent defined "human means" as being outside the sacrament. Or, natural faith. Or, human faith.
We can have "faith in God" in the natural sense but we can only have "that faith which saves" if God gives it to us, through the Church, at Baptism. 2 different kinds of Faith.
Trent explains all of this. Go re-read it.
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justiceDisposed = prepared for. They have not yet been justified.
Trent defined "human means" as being outside the sacrament. Or, natural faith. Or, human faith.
We can have "faith in God" in the natural sense but we can only have "that faith which saves" if God gives it to us, through the Church, at Baptism. 2 different kinds of Faith.
Trent explains all of this. Go re-read it.
Yes, Trent does explain it.
That faith is not natural, and it is not "outside the sacrament."
Otherwise, you have a Pelagian system where people can will themselves into a state of justification.Right. And also no one can "have personal faith" that is supernatural. You cannot "humanly believe" in a supernatural way. No matter what you read, heard or think. No matter even if St Peter appeared to you and instructed you in the Faith, this would not be supernatural Faith, which (along with supernatural Hope and Charity) can ONLY be had through Baptism.
Disposed = prepared for. They have not yet been justified.Here is Trent immediately after the section where preparation is described:
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting..
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision, availeth anything, nor uncircuмcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.
Note the council does not say that justification *may* follow preparation, it says that it *does* follow the preparation just described.
Note also the very dense, verbose explanation-- if the truth is simply that a catechumen cannot have faith or justification before baptism, the council does everything to avoid saying just that. The Council could simply have just said what you are saying; instead, it gives a metaphysical treatment of the causes of justification, and identifies baptism as the instrumental cause, distinguishing it from the efficient and meritorious cause (both of which types of causes are metaphysically necessary, whereas an instrumental cause is *not* metaphysically necessary-- see S. Thomas). If you do not understand the significance of this distinction the council makes, I entreat you to ponder and reflect on it.
Note everywhere you would expect the council to just slam it's fist down and identify....the metaphysically necessary administration of sacramental baptism as the only route of justification, it does something else.CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
It is not done out of the assumption that catechumens cannot have supernatural faith. The Council says they can.Catechism 101. Baptism gives supernatural Faith, which one can only receive once. Once one has supernatural Faith, they will always have it. Therefore a catechumen cannot have supernatural Faith both BEFORE and AFTER baptism. It makes no sense.
This "verbose" explanation is there precisely to hit all the points related to rejecting the various Protestant errors (and also their distortions of Catholic teaching)..
You can stop with the mansplaining here ... "If you do not understand the significance of this distinction the council makes, I entreat ..."
I entreat you to get off your high horse pretending that you alone truly understand the Council.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema..
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Catechism 101. Baptism gives supernatural Faith, which one can only receive once. Once one has supernatural Faith, they will always have it. Therefore a catechumen cannot have supernatural Faith both BEFORE and AFTER baptism. It makes no sense.
.
This coming from the guy who literally and unironically named a system of theology after himself? (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/) Please, it's Lent, and this is far too rich!
.
Supernatural faith can only be received once? :confused:
.
Supernatural faith can only be received once? :confused:
What he's (obviously) saying is that you can't RECEIVE supernatural faith if you ALREADY HAVE IT. You can't receive it two supernatural faiths.Just like you can only receive the Sacrament of Baptism once. Right? This has become a very strange thread.
Coming from someone who doesn't understand what a "system of theology" is. There's no system of theology, just a theological position on one particular subject, and I stuck my name on it to indicate that it's unique. This is done all the time, to associate a particular position with an individual who came up with it. It's neither "Feeneyism" nor "Dimondism" nor "BoDism", so this is a label to distinguish it. I argue that it's what St. Ambrose and some other Fathers held, except that at the time they did not have a term "BoD", which was made up long after them..
Just like you can only receive the Sacrament of Baptism once. Right? This has become a very strange thread..
Even someone who has supernatural faith can have *more* supernatural faith super-added onto their existing 'amount'. That's what happens, for instance, when a catechumen who already has supernatural faith is baptized.
.
Ah, yes, when you name a theological system (er, position) after yourself you're being traditional and when I copy and paste Trent I'm being self-important. Must be because of how much more learned you are, forgive me.
...
Am I doing it right?
Supernatural faith can only be received once? (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/confused1.gif)Yep. Trent even points out that no sin removes supernatural faith from the soul. And obviously Trent is talking about the initial reception of Faith. You're baptized once and forever. You get initial Faith only once.
.
Even someone who has supernatural faith can have *more* supernatural faith super-added onto their existing 'amount'. That's what happens, for instance, when a catechumen who already has supernatural faith is baptized.
.
Chap. 10. Concerning the Increase of Justification Received (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/lt.htm#qo)
1535 Dz 803
Having, therefore, been thus justified and having been made the "friends of God" and "his domestics" (Jn 15,15 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/fd2.htm#yb) Ep 2,19 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dz0.htm#cp)), "advancing from virtue to virtue" (Ps 83,8 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/gz0.htm#bqz)), "they are renewed" (as the Apostle says) "from day to day" (2Co 4,16 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/bno.htm#dq)), that is, by mortifying the members of their flesh (Col 3,5 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dqi.htm#c4)), and by "presenting them as instruments of justice" (Rm 6,13 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/g50.htm#ga) Rm 6,19 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/g50.htm#gg)), unto sanctification through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church; in this justice received through the grace of Christ "faith cooperating with good works" (Jc 2,22 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/fbk.htm#ch)), they increase and are further justified [can. 24 and 32], as it is written: "He that is just, let him be justified still" (Ap 22,11 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/b5p.htm#ov)), and again: "Be not afraid to be justified even to death" (Si 18,22 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/he3.htm#tp)), and again: "You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith only" (Jc 2,24 (http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/fbk.htm#cj)). And this increase of justice Holy Church begs for, when she prays: "Give unto us, O Lord, an increase of faith, hope and charity" [13th Sun. after Pent.].
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dw5.htm
Here is Trent immediately after the section where preparation is described:The follow up would be the sacrament of baptism which gives the supernatural faith (the instrumental cause).
.
Note the council does not say that justification *may* follow preparation, it says that it *does* follow the preparation just described.
.
Here is Trent immediately after the section where preparation is described:Excellent explanation.
.
Note the council does not say that justification *may* follow preparation, it says that it *does* follow the preparation just described.
.
Note also the very dense, verbose explanation-- if the truth is simply that a catechumen cannot have faith or justification before baptism, the council does everything to avoid saying just that. The Council could simply have just said what you are saying; instead, it gives a metaphysical treatment of the causes of justification, and identifies baptism as the instrumental cause, distinguishing it from the efficient and meritorious cause (both of which types of causes are metaphysically necessary, whereas an instrumental cause is *not* metaphysically necessary-- see S. Thomas). If you do not understand the significance of this distinction the council makes, I entreat you to ponder and reflect on it.
.
Note everywhere you would expect the council to just slam its fist down and identify (as those who deny the possibility of BoD identify) the metaphysically necessary administration of sacramental baptism as the only route of justification, it does something else. It hearkens the metaphysical necessity of the passion, and of the communication of the passion's merits to the Christian/catechumen. Why do you think this is, if the Council intended to deny the possibility of Baptism of Desire?
.
As far as the catechumen requesting faith, this is done in the maintenance of Apostolic Tradition. It is not done out of the assumption that catechumens cannot have supernatural faith. The Council says they can.
Excellent explanation.
This canon states that both the "sacraments of the New Law" and the "desire thereof" are necessary. Since the canon is in the negative ("without") the term OR is used. (Affirmatives are associated with "and"; negatives are associated with "or".)I think I made a mistake here about the 'negative'. The statement is negative not because of 'without' but because of 'anathema'. I think I'm starting to confuse myself.
I think I made a mistake here about the 'negative'. The statement is negative not because of 'without' but because of 'anathema'. I think I'm starting to confuse myself.
Dimond Brothers sent this passage to a Latin scholar at Oxford, who concurred that either meaning is possible, and that the correct meaning can be known only from context or an individual's prior knowledge.
Really, the problem with the Canons is that they're not explicit about wihich (benefits of the) Sacraments are available or accessible through votum. We know that it taught this about the Sacrament of Confession. But the Canons lump all the Sacraments together.Thanks for the response. I recently just finished this thread here, (trying to dig through the old posts to educate myself)
What's at issue is with "without A or B" construct. It's ambiguous on its own and could be read the BoD way or could be read the non-BoD way.
But my chief arguments for the non-BoD way are:
1) the citation from Sacred Scripture from Our Lord used as proof text, where He teaches that water AND the Holy Ghost are necessary
2) the logical corollary of the BoD reading would be that justification can be received WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, and that expression would promote the exact same heresy that Trent is condemning
These two considerations render the BoD understanding of the passage impossible.
"No X without A or B" ... this can mean "No X without (A or B)." or it can mean "No X without A or without B." We've seen examples of both.
I can't write a letter without a pen or a pencil. Means that either one suffices. (equivalent of the BoDer reading of Trent)
No wedding without a bride or a groom. Means that both are necessary and that there can be no wedding if either one is missing. (equivalent of the non-BoDer reading of Trent)
Context would be required to determine the meaning. Dimond Brothers sent this passage to a Latin scholar at Oxford, who concurred that either meaning is possible, and that the correct meaning can be known only from context or an individual's prior knowledge.
I know that "I can't write a letter without a pen or a pencil." means that I need only one or the other (not both) because of my prior knowledge of letter writing and how pens and pencils relate to that. Same with the bride and groom reading. I know that both are required for the wedding because I have prior knowledge of what a wedding is.
There's also context. So take this example. Assume that I know absolutely nothing about baseball. Never heard of it before.
"We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball." Hmmm. Does this mean that I can play if I have EITHER a bat OR a ball or does it mean that I can't play unless I have both of them? I don't know, because I don't have knowledge or context.
Now let's add some context. "We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball, since Jim told me that we need a bat and a ball to play baseball."
But this is precisely what Trent is doing. Trent immediately disambiguates the passage by citing the text from the Gospel as "proof text" (that's what the phrase, "as it is written" means).
[paraphrase] "Justification can't happen without the laver (water) or the votum (Holy Ghost), because Jesus taught that both water and the Holy Ghost are required."
We could no more read this as meaning "Justification can't happen without EITHER laver/water OR the votum." than we could read "We can't play baseball without a bat or a ball, since Jim told me that we need a bat and a ball to play baseball." as meaning that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.
So this is reason 1 why the BoDer reading doesn't work, the disambiguating proof text provided by Trent.
For reason number 2, if you say that ...
Justification cannot happen without EITHER the laver (the Sacrament) OR ELSE the desire for it, the logical corollay is: "Justification can happen WITHOUT the laver, without the Sacrament of Baptism." If I say, "I can't write a letter without a pen or a pencil." ... can I write a letter without a pen? Yes, yes I can ... if I have a pencil. This expression means that I CAN write a letter without a pen. And I CAN write a letter without a pencil.
That's just plain heretical, to assert that I CAN be justified WITHOUT the Sacrament, and this is in fact the same heresy that Trent is condemning by teaching dogmatically that the Sacrament is necessary for salvation. Even with BoD, if you believe in it, justification does not and cannot happen WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism. Even in BoD, the Sacrament remains the instrumentcal cause of justification. Otherwise, you're a Pelagian who holds that the votum itself, without the Sacrament, can justify, effectively ex opere operantis, i.e. that you can will your own justification and salvation.
So for both of these very compelling reasons, the BoDer reading of Trent is absolutely untenable.
Thanks for the response. I recently just finished this thread here, (trying to dig through the old posts to educate myself)
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/pre-baptismal-justification-(for-those-who-do-not-believe-in-bod)/135/
I agree with what you said. It makes no sense to me that the answer could be EITHER laver or desire (will/vow/intent) because that would mean you could forcefully baptise someone.
I can understand the Saints regarding the 'desire' for the sacrament for catechumans (though I don't agree with it). But I don't understand how people can say that those who hate Christ can be saved outside the Church, even though the Athanasian Creed requires belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Even that statement "saved outside the church but by the church" just seems outright stupid because it's still outside the Church.....It seems to me that 'invincible ignorance' has been twisted to mean something else in-order to deny EENS.
Also regarding with what St. Leo said about sanctification, redemption, and water all being inseparable. Is sanctification the same as justification?
The principle should be examined on its own merits.
I agree with this. Basically, my position is that Trent is neither teaching nor condemning the notion of BoD. So, the Doctors who believed in BoD held that people cannot be saved "WITHOUT" the Sacrament, but rather that they can receive it in voto. This is why after Trent, St. Robert was very careful to avoid saying that they can be saved without it, but instead say that they (catechumens only) could in theory have a different mode of receiving the Sacrament.
Now, examining BoD in principle, it's CLEAR that it's nothing but speculation, and there's no evidence that it was revealed. Majority of the Church Fathers rejected it, and no one has ever demonstrated how / why it logically and necessarily follows from other revealed dogma. Without one of these two criteria, unanimous consensus or necessary implicit logical derivation, there's no evidence of it having been revealed, and so it remains squarely in the realm of speculation.
Theologian after theologin after theologian merely GRATUITOUSLY CLAIM that such a thing exists, but it's never been proven. Contrary to the opinion held by the Dimonds, however, it's also never been condemned, and has been clearly permitted by the Church. I think that was a mistake, but a mistake allowed by God because without BoD there could never have been a Vatican II, the entire foundation of which is the new ecclesiology.
1. BOD is not in every catechism. It started being inserted in the 1700/1800s. Examples: Some posters here in the past showed pictures of the original Baltimore Catechism which has no mention of it. But subsequent editions mentioned it. It was added.
Also, catechisms aren't infallible, so any errors contained aren't a problem for indefectibility.
2. BOD speculation is not "universal" therefore there is no "universal error".
a. St Thomas (and others of the Middle Ages) source St Augustine as the basis; but not Scripture/Revelation/Tradition. Not sure why they didn't realize he recanted his opinion?? Probably because they were just debating the issue and didn't consider it a doctrine worth much research time.
b. St Bellarmine is clear that it's his opinion and based on St Thomas (which is based on St Augustine).
c. I've never heard of any Doctor/Saint make an argument from Scripture or anyone besides St Augustine.
d. St Augustine isn't infallible nor can he be viewed as "Tradition".
e. Trent itself quotes Christ in Scripture (repeatedly) which mentions 2 necessary things - faith and water. Trent never says, explicitly, that only faith suffices.
f. Any saint/doctor or holy person who comments on Christ's teaching ALWAYS says that faith/water are necessary for Baptism. This cannot be questioned.
g. Ergo, BOD is speculative, just due to the lack of explanation, lack of details, lack of scripture/tradition proofs and the problem of varied/differing explanations of it.
BOD is not in every catechism. It started being inserted in the 1700/1800s. Examples: Some posters here in the past showed pictures of the original Baltimore Catechism which has no mention of it. But subsequent editions mentioned it. It was added.
T. The necessity of Baptism is so great that if anyone were to die without reception of Baptism, or at least desire for it, he could by no means enter heaven. Because infants are liable to danger of this sort, and can easily die, but still do not have capacities to desire Baptism, therefore it is necessary to baptize them as soon as possible. And although they do not understand that which they receive, nevertheless, the Church supplies that which it responds and pledges for them by means of the godparents, which suffices. Just as by Adam we have all fallen into sin and disfavor with God when we still did not know it, so also it is enough for God if, through Baptism and the Church, we are freed from sin and received in its grace even if we do not yet notice.
Wrong. It's in The Catechism of Trent (1566). I know, I know: you dispute that. And there's the Catechism of St. Peter Canisius (late 1550s or so), St. Robert Bellarmine's Catechism (1598), and the Douay Catechism (1649).The question is: Was BOD in the original text (i.e. the original language...latin), or only in the "translated" texts (i.e. english, italian, etc)? And when was it translated?
Because Trent reiterates "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." And also because the majority of the early fathers held to water baptism, and St. Gregory nαzιanzus denies it.
The argument is simply this: the defect of a lack of receipt may be "supplied." It is impossible "to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition." Nothing more. I'm quoting from Orestes Brownson, whom I quoted a few pages back.
So let's make distinctions.
If you can understand that core concept which is a common denominator of every saint, doctor who is a BOD proponent (and there are none post-Trent who aren't) - and no one who says you must apply it beyond catechumen who are desiring baptism has any authority to insist on their particular understanding - why do you reject it because some take it further than it has been taken?
Do you reject Vatican I and the plenary jurisdiction and power of the pope because some believe it means a pope has the authority to promulgate the changes of the New Mass? I trust not.
This type of "slippery slope" argument can be used against almost any legitimate principle. One need be very careful making it, as it could lead to rejection of valid principles because of the fallibility of men in running with them. It's a type of ad hominum argument addressed not only against an individual but mankind in general.
The principle should be examined on its own merits.
Do you reject Vatican I and the plenary jurisdiction and power of the pope because some believe it means a pope has the authority to promulgate the changes of the New Mass? I trust not.I don't reject V1 though I'm not 100% sure on the point you are trying to make. I thought it was not possible to make 'massive' changes to the mass? Though there are other issues with the V2 'Popes' than just the new mass.
A lot of this is opinion, but I'll deal with the erroneous factual assertion:The OP post is attempting to disprove that. Allegedly it was the Dimonds who first said that the Catechism of Trent teaches BoD. Did anyone else teach this before them?
Wrong. It's in The Catechism of Trent (1566).
Hello everyone, just to let everyone know Friarminor isn't associated or support any group out there.During the time of Pope Gregory XIII, right after the Trent Catechism was published, it is very clear that the Church did not consider those who had not been baptized to be in the family of Christ, which is the Church. This was always the traditional understanding. Baptism of desire doesn't place anyone in the family of God, the Church. https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1628144315221553158?s=20
https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1623510195476340736?s=20
1. BOD is not in every catechism. It started being inserted in the 1700/1800s. Examples: Some posters here in the past showed pictures of the original Baltimore Catechism which has no mention of it. But subsequent editions mentioned it. It was added.Excellent post Pax.
Also, catechisms aren't infallible, so any errors contained aren't a problem for indefectibility.
2. BOD speculation is not "universal" therefore there is no "universal error".
a. St Thomas (and others of the Middle Ages) source St Augustine as the basis; but not Scripture/Revelation/Tradition. Not sure why they didn't realize he recanted his opinion?? Probably because they were just debating the issue and didn't consider it a doctrine worth much research time.
b. St Bellarmine is clear that it's his opinion and based on St Thomas (which is based on St Augustine).
c. I've never heard of any Doctor/Saint make an argument from Scripture or anyone besides St Augustine.
d. St Augustine isn't infallible nor can he be viewed as "Tradition".
e. Trent itself quotes Christ in Scripture (repeatedly) which mentions 2 necessary things - faith and water. Trent never says, explicitly, that only faith suffices.
f. Any saint/doctor or holy person who comments on Christ's teaching ALWAYS says that faith/water are necessary for Baptism. This cannot be questioned.
g. Ergo, BOD is speculative, just due to the lack of explanation, lack of details, lack of scripture/tradition proofs and the problem of varied/differing explanations of it.
Because Trent reiterates "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." And also because the majority of the early fathers held to water baptism, and St. Gregory nαzιanzus denies it.Yes, John 3:5 and other Scripture must be wholly rejected, forgotten, and ignored and the thrice defined dogma denied for the idea of a BOD to be a doctrine of the Church or anything more than theological speculation.
Finally, corrupt fruits only come from a corrupt tree. The fruits of BoD is seen in V2 and salvation outside the church.....
1. BOD is not in every catechism. It started being inserted in the 1700/1800s. Examples: Some posters here in the past showed pictures of the original Baltimore Catechism which has no mention of it. But subsequent editions mentioned it. It was added.
The question is: Was BOD in the original text (i.e. the original language...latin), or only in the "translated" texts (i.e. english, italian, etc)? And when was it translated?
The OP post is attempting to disprove that. Allegedly it was the Dimonds who first said that the Catechism of Trent teaches BoD. Did anyone else teach this before them?
I don't reject V1 though I'm not 100% sure on the point you are trying to make. I thought it was not possible to make 'massive' changes to the mass? Though there are other issues with the V2 'Popes' than just the new mass.
I'm not accusing you of rejecting V1, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. My point was, men - fallible sinners and imperfect men - will take a truth and extend or pervert it to extremes. The extremities to which these fallible men stretch a truth does not render the truth itself (on its terms, properly understood) false.
It appears, to the contrary, that the original BC (1885, volume 2 - I misnamed it as "1889") does refer to BOD. See the attached from archive.org: https://ia800308.us.archive.org/28/items/baltimorecatechi14552gut/14552.txt (https://ia800308.us.archive.org/28/items/baltimorecatechi14552gut/14552.txt)(https://ia800308.us.archive.org/28/items/baltimorecatechi14552gut/14552.txt)I mispoke. What I meant to say is that the Baltimore Catechism is the american/english version of the Roman/latin catechism published after Trent (1600s). So we must go to the source, the Trent/latin version to see what it says.
We are to understand what God has REVEALED to us, and BoD is not revealed. God only revealed the necessity of Baptism for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. Also, there's this disturbing premise in BoD, that somehow people can be prevented by "impossibility" from receiving a Sacrament that God willed them to receive ... as if anything were impossible for God.Right. From all eternity, before He even created the earth, God knew every person whom He was going to bring into existence. He knew that Adam and Eve would sin; He knew mankind would need a Redeemer, that He would create a Church, that would have 7 sacraments, and all and every manner of detailed circuмstances that each and every single person would go through, on a day to day basis, before they died. We are like a colony of ameoba under a microscope and God is the all-knowing, all-just, all-wise, all-merciful Scientist. He knows everything and has always known it.
It's basically a dark heretical underbelly of the entire thing that St. Augustine also exposed as such in the "vortex of confusion" passage, and that's why he said that anyone who wished to be Catholic needs to reject that thinking. God has worked miracles to get the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect, raising some from the dead (via St. Peter Claver), or providing miraculous access to water. Impossibility is nonsense.God created the rules, which are the 7 sacraments and He knows that Baptism is the most important and primary one. He knows how "strict" the rules seem; He knows the very number of hairs on our head, but yet He can't provide baptism to those that want it? Nonsense. God is the Almighty master planner, master strategist, and master orchestrator. He sees the past, present and future all at once. He knows where each and every human being will be, 5 minutes from now, a year from now, 10 years from now. Nobody can hide from God and His reach is impossible to constrain.
Ironically, BoDers claim that anti-BoDers "constrain" God by the Sacraments, while themselves constraining Him by "impossibility". No, we do not "constrain" God by the Sacraments. He can obviously do anything He wills. What we're trying to investigate is what God has revealed about the economy of salvation as He has laid it down.God has constrained Himself by the Sacraments, by His own decision and authority. God cannot change, nor can he be wrong, nor can He deceive, nor can He make a minor error. Everything He decides is perfect, just, and merciful. Thus, He has no reason to go outside His own rules, for this would mean His rules are flawed or imperfect. He cannot change the rules, nor can He have exceptions, for He is all-constant, all-stable, and all-truthful.
I do agree that we can't necessarily throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and reject BoD SIMPLY because it's been used and abused to undermine EENS dogma.Excellent post, everyone needs to see this. I would give thanks buy it's doesn't let me.
I've always separated the two concerns, which are nearly always conflated ... by both sides.
I have objections to BoD theory while examining it as a standalone thing. I see no evidence of its having been revealed, nor any theological proof for it. If you look at its origins, it was CLEARLY rooted in speculation.
St. Augustine was really the only Church Father to unambiguously float the notion, and he was CLEARLY and admittedly speculating. In the famous passage, he wrote, "having considered it over and over again, I find that ... [BoD]". He went back and forth on it, and clearly said "I find that ...". He was clearly not teaching this with any authority, as if it were some doctrine received from the Apostles and part of the Deposit. In fact, the argument he adduced in that passage was mistaken, as he argued from the example of the Good Thief. Problem there, of course, is that the Good Thief died before the Sacrament of Baptism was made obligatory after Our Lord's Resurrection. Nor is it clear what is meant by "paradise", as he could not enter Heaven "this day", since the gates of Heaven weren't opened until Our Lord rose a couple days later on the Third Day. This "paradise" was a reference to the Limbo of the Fathers. In any case, St. Augustine later retracted BoD and made some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence. But the tentativeness of his speculation, the fact that it was based on mistaken reasoning, and the fact that St. Augustine later vehemently retracted it ... these seemed to be lost on those who later in Medieval times kept appealing to his "authority" and that of St. Ambrose for their belief in BoD. It was also lost on them that 5-6 Church Fathers explicitly rejected it. What were the other Fathers, chopped liver? When the works of St. Augustine became more available in the proto-scholastic era, there was an excessive adulation of St. Augustine, to the point that the Church had to condemn the proposition that it's possible to prefer the teaching of St. Augustine to that of the Church's Magisterium. When the Church condemns a proposition, it's because someone out there holds it. St. Augustine's theological position that infants who die unbaptized go to hell and suffer an (albeit mild) pain of loss was held for 700 years ... until it was finally questioned by Abelard, and eventually most theologians sided with his opinion. And, interestingly, the same Abelard also rejected BoD theory. I'll come back to an interesting aside about Abelard in a later post.
As for St. Ambrose, it's unclear what he meant about Valentinian. He hoped that the same condition could apply to Valentinian's piety/zeal as would apply to unbaptized martyrs. But he then said that even unbaptized martyrs are not crowned, even if they are washed. That distinction has never been properly noticed or accounted for. Elsewhere, St. Ambrose clearly teaches that even devout catechumens cannot be crowned (enter the Kingdom) if they die before their initiation (reception of the Sacrament). Was he contradicting himself or was there some distinction we're missing?
So these were the only two Fathers who arguably held some notion of BoD, one of them temporarily. We have 5-6 Fathers who explicitly reject the concept. At one point, St. Augustine admitted that BoD was speculation in response to the fact that sometimes devout catechumens would die without Baptism, whereas certain scoundrels who kept sinning until their last moments would receive the Sacrament on their deathbed. So here the speculation was rooted in judgments about what would or would not be "fair" for God to do, a very dangerous line of thinking, as many have lost the faith due to considering God cruel or unmerciful for allowing one or another tragedy to befall innocent people. St. Augustine dismissed this line of reasoning, saying that those who "wish to be Catholic" must reject it, and that this line of thought leads to a "vortex of confusion". He couldn't have been more prophetic. BoD has created an incredible vortex of confusion in the Church, precisely because it's all motivated by this notion that "it would not be fair if ..." Even St. Robert Bellarmine stated that he came to accept BoD because the contrary "would seem too harsh" (durius esset). But this is not theology, and our judgments about the mercy and justice of God from our feeble minds can never be used as theological proof of anything. God's allowing of evil in the world has long remained a mystery. We simply hold by faith that WHATEVER God does is in fact all just and all merciful at the same time. So it is not for us to draw theological conclusions from emotional premises. We are to understand what God has REVEALED to us, and BoD is not revealed. God only revealed the necessity of Baptism for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven. Also, there's this disturbing premise in BoD, that somehow people can be prevented by "impossibility" from receiving a Sacrament that God willed them to receive ... as if anything were impossible for God. It's basically a dark heretical underbelly of the entire thing that St. Augustine also exposed as such in the "vortex of confusion" passage, and that's why he said that anyone who wished to be Catholic needs to reject that thinking. God has worked miracles to get the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect, raising some from the dead (via St. Peter Claver), or providing miraculous access to water. Impossibility is nonsense. Ironically, BoDers claim that anti-BoDers "constrain" God by the Sacraments, while themselves constraining Him by "impossibility". No, we do not "constrain" God by the Sacraments. He can obviously do anything He wills. What we're trying to investigate is what God has revealed about the economy of salvation as He has laid it down.
So, after the time of St. Fulgentius (early 500s A.D.) until about 600 years later, there's no mention of BoD in Catholic theology (for or against). In the pre- or proto- scholastic era, there was the revival of interest in and access to St. Augustine, and there was a dispute about BoD between two famous teachers, Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor, the former being against and the latter for. Peter Lombard, of the famous "Sentences", that became the textbook of all the later scholastics, asked St. Bernard to weigh in on the dispute. St. Bernard VERY TENTATIVELY sided in favor of BoD, saying that he'd "rather be right with Augustine than wrong on his own" ... evidently also unaware that St. Augustine had retracted the opinion. Peter Lombard then went with it, included it in the "Sentences", from where St. Thomas also went with it. And, after St. Thomas, it of course went "viral". On a side note, St. Bernard was very hostile to Abelard, accusing him of impiety (and even heresy) for his approach to theology. But Abelard was nothing but ahead of his time and should be considered the father of scholasticism. His approach in the work "Sic Non" (Yes No) was nothing other than the same approach St. Thomas made famous later, where he examined theological propositions based on looking at the counter-arguments. Abelard also defined theology as reason applied to revealed doctrine, which St. Bernard wrongly rejected as impious. This became the very definition of theology, as taught by St. Thomas and the scholastics. St. Bernard did not think that reason should be applied to Revelation.
Then we have something from Pope Innocent II, who also (as we have seen incorrectly) relied on "the authority of Ambrose and Augustine," but did not teach it with his own papal authority. NEITHER of these Fathers, as we have seen, taught it with any kind of "authority" ... if they even held the opinion at all.
This is the true history of BoD, and there's no evidence that it can be considered any more than mere speculation, often founded in non-Catholic principles, such as binding God by impossibility, judgments regarding whether something or not would be fair for God to do, etc. This thinking, or rather, emotion, is clearly behind BoD theory, and it is not a valid foundation for any kind of actual theology. True theological proofs for BoD simply do not exist.
Finally, I object to BoD because it minimizes the necessity and effects of the Baptismal character. It is the Baptismal character that transforms the soul into the likeness of God's Son, Our Lord, so that the Father recognizes the soul as a Son, a member of the Family of the Holy Trinity, by adoption, and this is how the soul enters into the inner life of the Holy Trinity and can see God as He is in the Beatific Vision. This supernatural ability to see God as He is, human beings lack it by nature, so they require an additional supernatural faculty for it, and that too is an effect of the Baptismal character. This character effectively imprints Our Lord's "DNA" on the soul and the body, allowing human beings to become members of Christ and thus part of the Church. BoD theory would reduce the Baptismal character to a simple non-repeatability marker that some people in Heaven have and others don't, meaning that the Sacrament cannot be repeated. That is not consistent with what the Fathers thought of the "seal" or the "crown" or the "character". For the Fathers, these were essential to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. I'd be more open / amenable to a BoD theory that posited the reception of this character by those who have BoD than the one that holds they do not. There are serious problems with the BoD theory holding that temporal punishment can remain after BoD, since that's not a true "rebirth" as defined by the Council of Trent. There are serious problems with the BoD reading of Trent.
No one denies that BoD eventually became the dominant or prevailing theological opinion, but mere unanimity of opinion does not constitute a note of dogma and revelation. As we saw, St. Augustine's mistaken opinion regarding the fate of unbaptized infants was unanimously held for nearly 700 years. And for the BoDers who make too much of this being the prevailing opinion, many of these same reject the necessity of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation. Well, what of the fact that this was the unanimous teaching and belief of all the Fathers and of all Catholics for the first 1500 years of Church history? It was OK for a Franciscan and some Jesuit to come along and question this, but evil of Father Feeney to question the prevailing opinion about BoD? If anything could be considered an infallible teaching of the OUM, it's the fact that explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity and Our Lord were necessary for salvation, and yet the same people who claim was must follow theological opinion of the last couple hundred years, simply toss this aside as if it didn't even exist. Some Trads follow what I call "Cekadism", holding that the consensus of theologians is somehow an effectively-infallible rule of faith. Msgr. Fenton explicitly rejected this exaggeration.
This is really the state of BoD. It is not and can never be defined dogma. There's no theological proof for it, no evidence that it was revealed.
In practice, in its application or, arguably, mis-application, it's caused tremendous harm. If I were pope, one of the first things I'd do is to ban all mention of BoD and order it expunged from all Catholic theological works, including those of the Doctors. It is never to be mentioned again by Catholics ... even short of issuing a condemnation of the notion. Why? Simply weigh the possible good that could come from believing in BoD vs. the harm we've seen come from it.
What good does it do? It's merely used to provide some (possibly unfounded) hope in people who have lost loved ones who were not baptized. That's all it was ever for.
On the other side, it has done tremendous damage to faith in the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation and to EENS dogma. Without BoD, Vatican II could never have happened. Ironically, it also, as Father Feeney famously pointed out, LESSENED individuals' resolve to receive the Sacrament, as they believe it less necessary. So belief in BoD actually lessens the possibility that BoD could "happen". I recall the story related by Archbishop Lefebvre of an African native who urgently requested Baptism, being worried that he wouldn't see the Archbishop for a long time and might die in the interim. Archbishop Lefebvre answered that he needn't worry because he'd be saved by his desire. Did this African go off thinking, "Whew. I don't really need Baptism to be saved." and with a seriously reduced desire and intention to receive it as a result?
BoD needs to be never mentioned again by Catholics, and possibly condemned. If I were Pope, I'd immediately ban any mention of it and order mention of it expunged from all Catholic books, explaining that the Church has never taught BoD, even if it was tolerated, and that the toleration was coming to an end. I would issue an Encyclical/Bull reiterating the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Then I would prayerfully consider whether to outright explicitly condemn the notion of BoD, asking God for signs about whether I should do so.
There are serious problems with the BoD theory holding that temporal punishment can remain after BoD, since that's not a true "rebirth" as defined by the Council of Trent. There are serious problems with the BoD reading of Trent.
Was it? Let's you and me try to find it. I'm trying. Lend a hand.This did not start with Fr. Feeney, by the way I'm not a "feeneyite" neither is Friarminor. We don't agree with Fr. Feeney on justification. DecemRationis is saying "there was no controversy that Trent itself said it until the late 1940s or 1950s and, subsequently, "feeneyism" I already mentioned Pope Gregory XIII right after the Trent Catechism that the Church did not consider those who had not been baptized to be in the FAMILY OF CHRIST which is the CHURCH. St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St Leo I, Pope Gregory XIII & Pope Eugene IV weren't "feeneyites" they held water baptism.
But I don't think it will matter, will it? I suspect you'll still read the text your way, even if a conspiracy of later "insertion" is dispelled.
There's a book called "Sources of Baptism of Blood and Desire" - Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire : Christopher P. Conlon : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I (https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire/mode/2up)f you review it, you will see that the post-Trentian sources on BOD almost always, when they cite a support, cite the Council of Trent itself. There was a universal consensus that that's what Trent said in Session VI, Chapter 4 - one could be justified by a desire for the sacrament. If one thought Trent itself said that, why would one quote the Catechism on BOD? No one questioned Trent itself on BOD, and it was not necessary to refer to the Catechism as there was no controversy that Trent itself said it until the late 1940s or 1950s and, subsequently, "Feeneyism."
In response to a challenge that Trent referred to BOD, one would naturally go then to the Catechism of the Council. There would be no need in the absence of a dispute or challenge as to what Trent itself said.
Excellent post, everyone needs to see this. I would give thanks buy it's doesn't let me.I can't do the thumbsy up thingy too Anthony, but we can do this
Unfortunately most trads will not go out of their comfort zone to take in and consider this point of view and it's doesn't help that they would rather follow the clergy who teach BoB/BoD/II then do their own research. Also the clergy themselves are very stubborn in regards to looking at all the information.
This did not start with Fr. Feeney, by the way I'm not a "feeneyite" neither is Friarminor. We don't agree with Fr. Feeney on justification. DecemRationis is saying "there was no controversy that Trent itself said it until the late 1940s or 1950s and, subsequently, "feeneyism" I already mentioned Pope Gregory XIII right after the Trent Catechism that the Church did not consider those who had not been baptized to be in the FAMILY OF CHRIST which is the CHURCH. St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St Leo I, Pope Gregory XIII & Pope Eugene IV weren't "feeneyites" they held water baptism.
In his quote above, Ladislaus seems to take as his position what Canon 30 (Canons on Justification) has anathematized:
Ladislaus: "there are serious problems with BoD theory holding that temporal punishment can remain after BoD."
Trent Canon 30: "If anyone saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received...that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment...let him be anathema."
Canon 30.
If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
Canon 29.
If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again, or that he can indeed recover again the lost justice but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and His Apostles, has hitherto professed, observed and taught, let him be anathema.
so if they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just.
For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.
I do agree that we can't necessarily throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and reject BoD SIMPLY because it's been used and abused to undermine EENS dogma.
I've always separated the two concerns, which are nearly always conflated ... by both sides . . .
No one denies that BoD eventually became the dominant or prevailing theological opinion, but mere unanimity of opinion does not constitute a note of dogma and revelation. As we saw, St. Augustine's mistaken opinion regarding the fate of unbaptized infants was unanimously held for nearly 700 years.
You really tried the ellipses trick? :facepalm: Unbelievable. This Canon is about the Sacrament of Confession. This exposes the abject dishonesty of most BoDers right here.
Of initial justification, Trent teaches:
1) there can be no initial justification without regeneration or rebirth (as Our Lord taught that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of Heaven)
2) regeneration / rebirth Trent defines as ridding the soul of any sin or stain of sin so that there's nothing left that would prevent the soul from immediately entering Heaven
Here's the entirety of Canon 30:
Canon 29, right before it is already in the section of Canons on Confession:
Canon is speaking of repentant sinners (which you ellipsesed out). Where exactly did I say that temporal punishment is removed from "every repentant sinner" (the part that you conveniently excised from the Canon)? You accuse me of heresy by removing key sections that prove otherwise. Shame.
In Session 6 (the one on Baptism), Chapter III, we read:
In Session 5 (on Original Sin), Chapter V, we read:
There can be no initial justification without rebirth, and rebirth is defined as being made completely new "in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.
Read Canon 30 again carefully. Nowhere in that canon will you find any exclusive reference to any Sacrament (Penance or otherwise).
ways, since almost everyone, to a man, would recognize a baby baptized in a Prot Church to be in a state of potential salvation without a desire to enter the Catholic Church. I think reflected upon that point would be profitable, but I'll leave that thought for now.Don't mean to derail the thread. But if an infant is baptised in the orthodox church and dies before the age of reason, are they saved? (Just a question I had on my mind)
Read Canon 30 again carefully. Nowhere in that canon will you find any exclusive reference to any Sacrament (Penance or otherwise).:facepalm: "Repentent Sinner" = sacrament of confession.
But if an infant is baptised in the orthodox church and dies before the age of reason, are they saved?Yes, and this applies to protestants or even pagan households. If the child did not reach the age of reason, then they could not embrace heresy/paganism, so they would die a catholic. In theory.
:facepalm: "Repentent Sinner" = sacrament of confession.Trent Session 6:
The purpose of baptism is not for repentent sinners, it is to join the Church. Canon 30 is definitely talking about confession's justification, not baptism's. The rest of your post is scattered thoughts based on this foundational error.
Yes, and this applies to protestants or even pagan households. If the child did not reach the age of reason, then they could not embrace heresy/paganism, so they would die a catholic. In theory.Alright thanks. I had assumed so but wanted to be sure, assuming their baptism was valid of course.
The purpose of baptism to be washed from past sin, both original and actual (if relevant to that individual). The Novus Ordo rite of Baptism follows the Novus Ordo theology of baptism is "to join the Church."No and yes. The purpose of Baptism is based on the first question the priest asks the adult or godparents of the child:
Read Canon 30 again carefully.
Trent Session 6:
----------
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
I was about to ask regarding the need for the sacrament of confession, where does that leave the lerfect act of contrition, or circuмstances where no priest is available to hear the confession, but it looks like the above post addresses the confusion about the subject of the canons.
Initial Justification = Rebirth
Rebirth (as the term inherently suggests) = a total cleansing of anything that would prevent entry into Heaven (including temporal punishment due to past sins)
It couldn't get simpler than that.
You've effectively denying Our Lord's teaching that no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven without being "born again" (and Trent defines the term "born again" very clearly).
Here is a quote from the section discussing BoD in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.That's all fine and dandy but Trent doesn't explain any of this. So Ott's explanation is purely speculative.
"Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishment for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments."
That's all fine and dandy but Trent doesn't explain any of this. So Ott's explanation is purely speculative.What Trent definitely teaches is that there is something called "the desire for [the bath of regeneration]" that confers "justification" on the soul having such a "desire." This is the concept of BoD within the context of the docuмents from the Council of Trent. That there is such a thing as BoD and that it deals with "justification" is part of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
So, the precise details surrounding BoD are in the realm of "theological opinion."First you said this.
And to say that "Ott's explanation is purely speculative" is baseless.Then you said this.
What Trent definitely teaches is that there is something called "the desire for [the bath of regeneration]" that confers "justification" on the soul having such a "desire."
First you said this.
Then you said this.
Do you not see the contradiction? If we don't know the details (which you affirmed), then someone who attempts to provide details (Ott), through an explanation, is speaking speculatively (Ott's attempt = speculation).
:laugh1: You guys are so hell-bent on blindly defending this "doctrine" that you're not reading plain english
BoD per se (i.e., that there is such a thing as BoD) is infallible Magisterium.
Other details surrounding the concept of BoD have not been officially added to the Magisterium, but have been logically "settled" by authoritative theologians.
As I've pointed out, there are two possible readings of the crucial text. We're debating which one is better.
Even IF the BoDer interpretation is correct (and there's no way I see it because, as I pointed out, the logical corollary is a heresy), Trent would be saying that there can be no justification without the Sacrament or the desire. Trent never taught that justification can happen by the desire alone, but is effectively saying that you have to have the Sacrament AT LEAST IN DESIRE (leaving open the possibility). There's nowhere any positive teaching in that regard, that the desire alone suffices. In other words, it would be saying that you have to say that the Sacrament is necessary at least in desire to avoid the heresy of denying the necessity of the Sacrament.
But the BoDer intepretation is certainly false. If you say that justification can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament, that's the very heresy being condemned throughout the treatise on justification.
"I cannot write a letter without a pen or a pencil." This means that I CAN write a letter WITHOUT a pen (if I have a pencil). CAN I be justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism? Absolutely not. Even if you believe in BoD, you can't say that this magical "BoD" process can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament.
So, let me ask you this. Is the requirement of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation and Our Lord Jesus Christ necessary for justification?
Also false. Not only do theologians not "settle" anything (as they're not part of the Ecclesia Dicens), the theologians remain in disagreement on the most fundamental points about BoD. We have no idea what it is, and we cannot give our assent to a vague ill-defined concept, only to propositions.
So, let me ask you this. Is the requirement of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation and Our Lord Jesus Christ necessary for justification?
The answer to your question about what kind of "faith" is required for Justification is in the passage on "Preparation" that we had discussed earlier from Session 6, Chapter 6:
I follow what Trent says.
My reading of the text ("the desire for [the bath of regeneration]" from Trent Session 6, chapter 4) is supported by commentary from St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, by the Catechism of Trent, and by the "common opinion" of the theologians as discussed in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
Which Catholic theologians, teaching with an imprimatur, after the Council of Trent support your position?
St. Peter Canisius, Doctor of the Church who who present and spoke twice at Trent. In his catechism, when he states that Baptism is necessary for adults and infants, by adults he has a footnotes that references Trent and two passage from the Church Fathers, both of which explicitly state that even good Catechumens cannot be saved if they died before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.
Apart from that, defend YOUR "reading of the text". Neither theologians nor Doctors nor Church Fathers (except the latter in unanimity) are infallible.
But, you can't and you won't, because you don't want to consider the matter honestly. You've already made up your mind about what you want to believe on this subject.
Now, the Catechism of Trent, IS directed at a higher-level, more mature audience, specifically Pastors and Priests. It does discuss BoD:Read the title of the thread and read through the start of the thread. The Catechism does not teach BoD and is certainly not infallible as it was only intended for pastors and not the entire Church, no catechism is infallible.
"...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentence for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
Unlike the Canisius catechism, the Roman Catechism was officially promulgated by the Universal Church and guaranteed to be free to essential error.
Read the title of the thread and read through the start of the thread. The Catechism does not teach BoD and is certainly not infallible as it was only intended for pastors and not the entire Church, no catechism is infallible.
Stop trying to weasel out of this. Yes or no. Is explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation necessary for justification?I can’t believe you won’t answer this, Angelus. This is a very basic question. Shame on you.
I can’t believe you won’t answer this, Angelus. This is a very basic question. Shame on you.
If the Church actually taught that BoD was not possible (as many on this thread claim), then that same Church would be the cause of countless souls going to Hell for lack of the Sacrament when they die before the Sacrament has been received.
I can’t believe you won’t answer this, Angelus. This is a very basic question. Shame on you.
Hopefully this venn diagram shows up, I've also attached it.
Regarding cannon 30, if the statement “to every repentant sinner” includes both those who receive the grace of justification, whether it be in Baptism or Penance, then both are repentant sinners.
One cannot say all repentant sinners are without the debt of temporal punishment, as that would only apply to the newly baptized.
We probably both know why he won't answer it.
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
-------------
I thought my previous answer would be obvious enough. The quote above from the Council of Trent does not mention belief (explicit or implicit) in "the Holy Trinty" or in "the Incarnation." So, according the the Fathers of the Council of Trent, belief in those two things would not be necessary for "justification." On that question, I would not dare to contradict Trent.
Hopefully this venn diagram shows up, I've also attached it.
Regarding cannon 30, if the statement “to every repentant sinner” includes both those who receive the grace of justification, whether it be in Baptism or Penance, then both are repentant sinners.
One cannot say all repentant sinners are without the debt of temporal punishment, as that would only apply to the newly baptized.
(https://i.ibb.co/PT8MbmZ/Cannon-30-Venn-Diagram.jpg)
Did you find any other post-Trent statements by theologians, authorized by imprimatur, that state that BoD is heretical, as you claim.
Or was Canisius's catechism for little boys your best effort?
Correct. Nice graphic. And logic. Maybe it will be contagious.
And the title of the thread and the post at the start of the thread are misleading. I prove what I say with the actual evidence from the Catechism, so that those "with eyes to see" will not be misled. Here is the quote again from the Catechism of Trent:You clearly did not read the thread and you also ignored what I said about the Catechism being fallible.
You clearly did not read the thread and you also ignored what I said about the Catechism being fallible.
BoD is not a defined doctrine. If you actually read the thread you would have seen your points have already been addressed.
Nor is it lost on anyone that you refuse the title "Saint" to this Doctor of the Church, thus attempting to deride him even more, because he doesn't agree with YOUR reading of Trent.
Oh, but, in the appendix to the larger work to which you refer, he does agree with me and with Trent. St. Peter Canisius (Doctor of the Church) states in his Appendix (AN APPENDIX OR ADIDITION OF THE FALL OF MAN AND Justification according to the sentence and doctrine of the Councell of Trent):Unfortunately, Angelus, it doesn't help. This is the teaching of the Council verbatim. But our friends read this as "without both the laver of regeneration and the desire for it", i.e. two necessary conditions: the sacrament, and the desire of the sacrament (without the desire the sacrament avails nothing). They believe St Robert Bellarmine, St Alphonsus, etc, etc, also misunderstand what the Council says here...
-----------------------
8 A description of the Iustification of a wicked mā, & the manner thereof, in the state of grace. IN which wordes is insinuated the description of a wicked mans iustificati∣on: so that it is a translation from that state in the which man is borne the Sonne of the first ADAM, into the state of grace, & adoption of the Sonnes of God, by the second ADAM IESVS CHRIST our Sauiour. Which trans∣lation certes, after the Gospell once pub∣lished, cannot be made without the lauer of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: Vnlesse a man bee borne againe of water and the spirite, he cannot enter into the king∣dome of God.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001/1:8?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
-------------------------
So, now your ace, St. Peter Canisius (Doctor of the Church), does not even to agree with you. Will you try to find another one?
If this chart doesn't post, I also uploaded it.
(https://i.imgur.com/QhDBOSK.png)
. . . this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
As it is written says water and the Holy Spirit, both are needed.
If "or" means "one or the other" then forced baptisms would be valid.
if "or" means "one and the other" then both are needed.
So in the context of Justification, there are only two possible options: the Sacrament itself or the desire for the Sacrament. As such, the fact that the conjunction OR is used can mean nothing other than there are two options.
Posted on Facebook, April 27, 2014
Father Kramer wrote:
TO ALL FEENEYITES:
Your disagreement with the infallibly defined doctrine of Baptism of Desire is as irrational as it is heretical. You have no excuse: Justification takes place by the laver of regeneration or the desire of it ("aut ejus voto").
Father Kramer is then, of necessity, arguing that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. When speaking of adults (because the referneced canon is concerning the baptism of the impious), if either the water or desire separate from each other is enough to save, making desire alone enough to save, then necessarily water alone saves despite the will.
That's because if you turn the "laver" / "desire" phrase into either/or (as I've pointed out myriad times), you're saying that the Sacrament suffices without the desire. And Trent has two or three canons which explicitly reject the notion that Baptism can be efficacious without the desire (=votum = will =cooperation). This proves that Trent was teaching about the need for cooperation of the will and not the so-called Baptism of Desire.
Despite his bloviations about anathemas, it's ironically Mr. Kramer who falls under the anathema of Trent by denying the need for the desire in order to be justified in Baptism. "Father" Kramer would do well to investigate the validity of his "Holy Orders" and also needs to supplement his Novus Ordo "theological" training.
That's precisely my point, you think the sacrament alone suffices for justification.
Laver of regeneration alone = no desire
Question is:
does the term laver of regeneration mean the sacrament itself (with desire included in that term, because without such desire no sacrament is effected) ?
and desire on the part of the recipient is implicit in the reception of the Sacrament because the Sacrament would be invalidly received if forced
the term laver of refrigeration
This is what it boils down to:If I were to say "Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation", you understand straight away that this means a valid baptism with all the requisite conditions on the part of both the minister and the recipient, the form, the matter. No one would understand that to mean an invalid baptism.
. . . this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
As it is written says water and the Holy Spirit, both are needed.
What we are saying:
. . . this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without water or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
Instead, you are saying:
. . . this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the Sacrament of Baptism (with desire included implicitly in that term) or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . The sleeping, moreover, and the weak-minded, if before they incurred weak-mindedness, or before they went to sleep persisted in contradiction, because in these the idea of contradiction is understood to endure, although they have been so immersed, they do not receive the sign of the sacrament; not so, however, if they had first lived as catechumens and had the intention of being baptized; therefore, the Church has been accustomed to baptize such in a time of necessity. Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.Thank you. This is why I believe that Trent was saying you need BOTH the LAVER AND DESIRE. The term "or" is used because it's a negative statement.
The Council was rather teaching on the necessity of the sacrament for salvation - the sacrament (with all the necessary conditions implied) or at least the desire
Canon 737
§ 1. Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation and is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words.
Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.
After the promulgation of the Gospel, Baptism of water is necessary by a necessity of means in re or in desire.
This is not so. *Justification* does *not* take place, yet the sacrament is actually conferred, but it is received sinfully. Which I believe is to say that the stain of Original sin is removed, but at the same time a mortal sin is committed by the recipient.
This is the point I am now trying to understand.
The term forced baptism is actually a misnomer, because the performance of a forced baptism is not a Baptism at all; no sacrament is conferred.
Without the votum of the recipient, the Sacrament of Baptism is not actually conferred.
The laver of regeneration = the Sacrament of Baptism actually conferred.
This is not so. *Justification* does *not* take place, yet the sacrament is actually conferred, but it is received sinfully. Which I believe is to say that the stain of Original sin is removed, but at the same time a mortal sin is committed by the recipient.
Thank you. This is why I believe that Trent was saying you need BOTH the LAVER AND DESIRE. The term "or" is used because it's a negative statement.
Father Kramer is then, of necessity, arguing that forced baptisms are efficacious to salvation. When speaking of adults (because the referenced canon is concerning the baptism of the impious), if either the water or desire separate from each other is enough to save, making desire alone enough to save, then necessarily water alone saves despite the will.
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
-------------
I thought my previous answer would be obvious enough. The quote above from the Council of Trent does not mention belief (explicit or implicit) in "the Holy Trinty" or in "the Incarnation." So, according the the Fathers of the Council of Trent, belief in those two things would not be necessary for "justification." On that question, I would not dare to contradict Trent.
They believe God's revelation, and specifically, that "God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." It make more sense to read that as including a knowledge of Christ's divinity, which implies knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation.
I would not exclude the necessity of explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation on the basis of that passage. In fact, I think it would be very rash and even dangerous to do so on that basis.
The only thing that I can think of, that needs to be articulated on, is how is laver of regeneration is to be understood in the case of infants who are incapable of such a desire.
So say you and Stubborn, etc. Yet if there can't be justification without both the water AND the desire, what about children? They are justified by the water, and do not have the desire. Yet they are justified.
I can anticipate your possible answer, but I'll wait to hear from you.
. . .
It sure doesn't appear obvious that it applies only to adults, but the contrary appears obvious, i.e. that it applies to all men.
QuoteQuoteCHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His 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.
CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults . . .
Trent makes the point that all men, as the seed of Adam and by "propagation" itself, are "unjust." Section III. It again refers to a "state" of injustice into which they are "born (as) a child of the first Adam." Section IV. This patently includes children: all men simply by birth.
In then goes on to note a distinction "in adults," where there is a preparation necessary - catechesis, etc. Section V.
Ummm, it appears "obvious" that you're wrong in exempting children from the necessity for justification identified in Section IV.
So the "desire" is not necessary for some men, and Trent doesn't indicate that there must be water AND desire for the justification for all men.
The "or" of the "water or desire" of Section IV appears to indeed be disjunctive for some, e.g. children at the least.
So then the translation from an unjust "child of Adam" to a state of grace is affected without both the water and desire for some men. Which is a bit of problem for the necessary Feeneyite reading.
If the recipient desires to and receives the valid sacrament outside of the Church, the sacrament does it's part so far as removing Original sin, yet at the same time he commits a mortal sin. This is why conditional baptism is not an absolute requirement at all times for converts to the faith who've been baptized before entering the Church.
A source needs to be provided, showing that a forced baptism is a valid Baptism, and that Original Sin is removed and the character received in such circuмstances.
I agree that if it were valid, justification would not take place.
When I say a forced baptism, I mean the attempt to administer baptism to a person who does not consent to such a thing.
In such a circuмstance, I think the person who commits the mortal sin would be the person attempting to administer baptism, and not the person receiving.
Oh, but, in the appendix to the larger work to which you refer, he does agree with me and with Trent. St. Peter Canisius (Doctor of the Church) states in his Appendix (AN APPENDIX OR ADIDITION OF THE FALL OF MAN AND Justification according to the sentence and doctrine of the Councell of Trent):
-----------------------
8 A description of the Iustification of a wicked mā, & the manner thereof, in the state of grace. IN which wordes is insinuated the description of a wicked mans iustificati∣on: so that it is a translation from that state in the which man is borne the Sonne of the first ADAM, into the state of grace, & adoption of the Sonnes of God, by the second ADAM IESVS CHRIST our Sauiour. Which trans∣lation certes, after the Gospell once pub∣lished, cannot be made without the lauer of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: Vnlesse a man bee borne againe of water and the spirite, he cannot enter into the king∣dome of God.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A69066.0001.001/1:8?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
-------------------------
So, now your ace, St. Peter Canisius (Doctor of the Church), does not even to agree with you. Will you try to find another one?
Infants have their God Parents do the desiring for them. Trent's catechism states that the Church decides for insane adults, but those who never expressed a desire to be baptized are not to be baptized at all, except in danger of death.
I'm thinking that "all the necessary conditions" merely depends on the circuмstance, that is, who is the recipient.
For men, desire is a prerequisite for the laver of regeneration.
For children and the mentally disabled, desire is not a is a prerequisite for the laver of regeneration.
Both are the laver of regeneration, the Sacrament of Baptism, one with desire and one without desire.
If the recipient desires to and receives the valid sacrament outside of the Church, the sacrament does it's part so far as removing Original sin, yet at the same time he commits a mortal sin. This is why conditional baptism is not an absolute requirement at all times for converts to the faith who've been baptized before entering the Church.
If one receives the sacrament for inheritance, marriage or some other reason without having a desire to receive it, I do not see that as being any different really than situation above.
This is contrary to the Christian religion, that anyone always unwilling and interiorly objecting be compelled to receive and to observe Christianity. On this account some absurdly do not distinguish between unwilling and unwilling, and forced and forced, because he who is violently forced by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur harm, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one also as he who under pretense approaches baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity, and he himself, just as he willed conditionally although not absolutely, must be forced to the observance of Christian Faith. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . . The sleeping, moreover, and the weak-minded, if before they incurred weak-mindedness, or before they went to sleep persisted in contradiction, because in these the idea of contradiction is understood to endure, although they have been so immersed, they do not receive the sign of the sacrament; not so, however, if they had first lived as catechumens and had the intention of being baptized; therefore, the Church has been accustomed to baptize such in a time of necessity. Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.
Infants have their God Parents do the desiring for them. Trent's catechism states that the Church decides for insane adults, but those who never expressed a desire to be baptized are not to be baptized at all, except in danger of death.
Stubborn,
You do realize the danger posed to your interpretation once you start supplying the desire for baptism from a source outside the one being baptized, do you not?
I think someone earlier in another thread posted a source about godparents supplying the desire.Yes, Godparents supply the desire for the child and are witnesses that the parents promise to raise the child in the Faith, which would also support such a desire when the child has grown up.
When I'm talking about forced baptisms, I mean baptisms where there is zero consent.Yes, this was a big problem in the days of protestantism in the 1500s. There were people being forcefully baptized and Trent wanted to clear up the fact that a forced baptism (or any sacrament) is invalid. Not just illicit but invalid.
Hopefully this venn diagram shows up, I've also attached it.There is a big problem with this Venn diagram; Venn diagrams can be quite tricky if one fails to wrap his head around what is being said. Penance presupposes Baptism, meaning that one cannot receive validly "Confession" unless he has been baptized. The entire "Penance" circle in this Venn diagram should be inside the "Baptism" circle. This is a very sloppy Venn diagram. There is not even a valid absolution unless one has been "baptized." The unbaptized can go to confession and "desire" all day long, it will avail him nothing! Even the Blessed Virgin, had she gone to confession (even though she was completely without sin), would not have received sacramental graces from confession had she not been baptized. One must become a member of the Church (Baptism) in order to receive the graces from the other sacraments.
Regarding cannon 30, if the statement “to every repentant sinner” includes both those who receive the grace of justification, whether it be in Baptism or Penance, then both are repentant sinners.
One cannot say all repentant sinners are without the debt of temporal punishment, as that would only apply to the newly baptized.
(https://i.ibb.co/PT8MbmZ/Cannon-30-Venn-Diagram.jpg)
Take the example of Innocent III:First he says one who violently has the sacrament forced on them and receives the sacrament albeit begrudgingly, does indeed receive the sacrament.
Denzinger 411
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877636/#msg877636 (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877636/#msg877636)
QuoteQuoteThis is contrary to the Christian religion, that anyone always unwilling and interiorly objecting be compelled to receive and to observe Christianity. On this account some absurdly do not distinguish between unwilling and unwilling, and forced and forced, because he who is violently forced by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur harm, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one also as he who under pretense approaches baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity, and he himself, just as he willed conditionally although not absolutely, must be forced to the observance of Christian Faith. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . . The sleeping, moreover, and the weak-minded, if before they incurred weak-mindedness, or before they went to sleep persisted in contradiction, because in these the idea of contradiction is understood to endure, although they have been so immersed, they do not receive the sign of the sacrament; not so, however, if they had first lived as catechumens and had the intention of being baptized; therefore, the Church has been accustomed to baptize such in a time of necessity. Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.
The entire "Penance" circle in this Venn diagram should be inside the "Baptism" circle.
"Laver" is the greek word for "washing". So "laver of regeneration" would be the act of washing in baptism, or the matter/form. That is, the pouring of water and the form of the sacramental prayer.
So, "Laver of Regeneration" (matter/form) + Desire (proper disposition) = sacrament.
As, "Water" (natural means) + "Holy Ghost" (supernatural means) = sacrament.
Thus, you have to have both for the sacrament. Can you only have the desire? Sure. Will that justify you? It seems likely. Will you go to heaven only justified, but not baptized? Don't know.
So say you and Stubborn, etc. Yet if there can't be justification without both the water AND the desire, what about children? They are justified by the water, and do not have the desire. Yet they are justified.From what I understand. Both the desire of Church and that of the parents/godparents suffice for desire in regards to children
Everytime I try to play "devil's advocate" and see if BOD fits, there's just holes in that block of cheese. I can't make it work. If one reads the entirety of Trent, the council does a good job of closing the loopholes. But one only sees all the loopholes if you read Trent holistically. If you pull out this phrase or that sentence, out of context, you can make it say anything.
Very true. I used to believe in BoD because I had been under the impression that Trent taught it. So one day I sat down and read both Sessions V and VI in the original Latin, and realized that Trent was not teaching BoD in any way, shape, or form. This was not the intent of its teaching. It was teaching about how the Sacraments work, through a cooperation of the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament and the cooperation of free will (related to votum) with grace. There was no intent here to teach the so-called alleged "Three Baptisms". You would have expected a mention of the Third, but Trent's text, if read the BoDer way, would rule out a third Baptism that did not simply reduce to votum. I read it over and over again and there was simply no way for me to squeeze "BoD" into the teaching. Trent didn't rule it out either, but it clearly wasn't teaching it.
But when individuals take that famous passage out of context, leave out the quotation from Our Lord, and use the grossly mistranslated "except through", then and ONLY then can you see "BoD" in Trent.
It's just in every catechism, Catholic encyclopedia for the last 500 years, various writings of popes for hundreds of years. But everyone missed it. That's truly miraculous, why do you think it worked out that way?You can actually answer by asking yourself why you yourself do not see the contradiction that *the opinion* of a BOD presents.
CHAPTER VI.I would just like to point out the errors in logic of Angelus' 2 sentences, in red, above. He's saying that Trent didn't say belief in the Trinity/Incarnation is necessary for justification. But the entire Chapter VI paragraph is full of words/phrases which reference these 2 doctrines. (See words in bold).
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
-------------
I thought my previous answer would be obvious enough. The quote above from the Council of Trent does not mention belief (explicit or implicit) in "the Holy Trinty" or in "the Incarnation." So, according the the Fathers of the Council of Trent, belief in those two things would not be necessary for "justification." On that question, I would not dare to contradict Trent.
. . . this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the Sacrament of Baptism (desire included implicitly in the term) or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."Laver of Regeneration" refers to the sacramental act provided by the Church, i.e. matter/form, i.e. water + prayers of the Church. The "desire/disposition" of the person involved is separate which is why Trent spent so much time on explaining the manner of preparation for adults.
Is the character of Baptism still conferred on one who is forced to undergo Baptism against his will?No. An invalid sacrament is no sacrament.
And even if Trent did teach BofD as salvific ...
... why cannot the other sacraments be had by desire? Confirmation by desire, Marriage by desire, Priesthood by desire.
And even if Trent did teach BofD as salvific, then why cannot the other sacraments be had by desire? Confirmation by desire, Marriage by desire, Priesthood by desire. Were the fathers at Trent being biased by picking out Baptism among the other sacraments? I often hear "God is not bound by the sacraments," but understood rightly, He is bound to the sacraments. Two men cannot marry, an Oreo cookie cannot be consecrated, ad naseam. Or is it really, that because I am so liberal, I need to find some way to get that poor ignorant native who lives next door to me, with his internet and Hot Pockets, into heaven?I agree, especially about hot pockets. :laugh1: It's too bad I can't "wish upon a star" and get a free one.
Sadly, the apparent defenders of Fr. Feeney in this thread do not seem to really understand the nuances of Fr. Feeney's teaching.
That quote is from The Saint Benedict Center's "Brother Michael," defending Fr. Feeney against the misunderstandings of (then) Fr. Richard Williamson, FSSPX. It is a long article. But if you read it, you will understand that the matter is much more complicated than most of the commenters on this thread seem to understand.
Fr. Feeney was definitely correct that "salvation" is not possible without the Sacrament of Baptism. But he was not saying that "justification" is not possible without the Sacrament of Baptism, which is what I have argued in this thread. In other words, a soul in that state, if there are such souls, would be in a kind of "limbo." And it just so happens that the Bible talks about such a "limbo." It was called the "limbo of the just" aka "the bosom of Abraham. And that situation required at a extraordinary, supernatural act of Jesus descending into Hell to free the "just" from "limbo" and bring them to "salvation."
So there is a possible in-between state open for theological discussion (meaning not heretical): it is a state where the soul is "justified" by something other than the Sacrament but is not prepared for "salvation" because the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for "salvation."Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Sadly, the apparent defenders of Fr. Feeney in this thread do not seem to really understand the nuances of Fr. Feeney's teaching.What you fail to understand is that most of 'us' aren't 'feenites', thIs is some bull label made up to detract from EENS. Just because someone holds water baptism doesn't make them a 'feenites'.
What you fail to understand is that most of 'us' aren't 'feenites', thIs is some bull label made up to detract from EENS. Just because someone holds water baptism doesn't make them a 'feenites'.Also the context of Trent is to condemn protestant doctrines, faith alone and BoD are very similar except for the 'in voto' trick because it still requires the basic faith and relies on the actual Sacrament in 'some' manner. But there are many passages in scripture showing people getting baptized who otherwise might be called 'invincibly ignorant'. The point is, as others have pointed out, it makes no sense to believe that God won't or is not capable of getting someone baptized if He wills it regardless of "impossibility".
What's going on in Acts 10:47 as pertains to this thread? The gentiles having received the Holy Ghost before being baptized with water.
I would just like to point out the errors in logic of Angelus' 2 sentences, in red, above. He's saying that Trent didn't say belief in the Trinity/Incarnation is necessary for justification. But the entire Chapter VI paragraph is full of words/phrases which reference these 2 doctrines. (See words in bold).
I used to think that the justification / salvation distinction originated with Father Feeney.
But a number of post-Tridentine theologians also made this distinction, most notably the Dominican theologian Melchior Cano.
Cano held that infidels could be justified through implicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, but they could not be saved through this implicit faith. So he too distinguished between justification and salvation.
Well, marriage can be confected by votum. In fact, the votum is the essential component there.Agreed, but it might be added that marriage is confected when there is a vota, a verbal exchange of both vows. The interesting thing with marriage, if the would-be-husband died right after the words, "I take thee...," would there have been a marriage? Because although not verbally expressed, the would-be-wife had the "intention" to express the words.
The point is, as others have pointed out, it makes no sense to believe that God won't or is not capable of getting someone baptized if He wills it regardless of "impossibility".Good point. I hate it when people argue that "God isn't limited by the Sacraments because He's omnipotent." This is Modernist thinking because it erodes the idea of God's Divine Providence and Wisdom.
Agreed, but it might be added that marriage is confected when there is a vota, a verbal exchange of both vows. The interesting thing with marriage, if the would-be-husband died right after the words, "I take thee...," would there have been a marriage? Because although not verbally expressed, the would-be-wife had the "intention" to express the words.
So, what of it, Angelus, yes or no, is explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation necessary for salvation? If you refuse to answer again, I will proceed as if your answer is no ... since there's no other explanation for your refusal to answer.
Of course, explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for SALVATION.
We have an instance of BoD in the Eunuch of Candace (Acts 8).
This was asked before you decided that you liked the justification vs. salvation distinction.
Wrong again. You asked your question pages after this post of mine:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877424/#msg877424
In that post I made the distinction between "justification" and "salvation." Here's how I ended that post:
"I do not claim to speak for all formulations of "BoD." I am only referring to that formulation of BoD to be found in Trent Session 6, Chapter 4 that is referred to as "the desire for [the bath of regeneration]. Trent describes that form of BoD as one potential pathway to "justification" (not "salvation") with the caveat that BoD is not equivalent to the Sacrament of Baptism because BoD justifies but does not remit the temporal debt for sin, while the Sacrament of Baptism both justifies and does remit all temporal debt for sin as well."
Trent: there can be no initial JUSTIFICATION without rebirth
Trent: rebirth means that no temporal punishment for sin remains.
QED: there can be no temporal punishment remaining after initial justification.
Sessio Sexta, |
Sixth Session, | |
celebrata die XIII. Januarii 1547. | held January 13, 1547. |
DECRETUM DE JUSTIFICATIONE. | DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION. |
[…] |
Caput IV. | Chapter IV. |
Insinuatur descriptio justifactionis impii, et modus ejus in statu gratiæ. | A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the manner thereof in the state of grace. |
| Quibus verbis justifications impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adæ, in statum gratiæ, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum: quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest; sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. | By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,—as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, [Rom. 8:15,16,23] through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God. [Jn. 3:5] |
We have an instance of BoD in the Eunuch of Candace (Acts 8). He had "come to Jerusalem to adore."(27) We know that this man at least knew of the religion of the Jєωs and sought to adore the God of the Old Testament. We do not know his motives, but presume his sincerity, since God saw fit to send an angel to Philip, commanding him to go to "the desert," "the way that goeth from Jerusalem into Gaza." The Holy Ghost had obviously stirred up the soul of the eunuch. The Eunuch had been to Jerusalem, but had not heard about Christ there, and leaving the city he had a "desire" to follow the truth. The Eunuch was reading the truth, but did not understand the truth, hence his admission, "how can I (understand the truth), unless some man show me?"(31) And the Eunuch, after he had been preached to, admitted his belief in Christ, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."(37) Because the eunuch desired to know the truth, God confirmed the full truth (Baptism) in him.How it this an instance of BoD? Clearly this shows God's providence of bringing water baptism to those who He wills. Did the Eunuch even know about baptism inorder to desire it? Did he know about the Trinity and incarnation? Isn't the point of BoD that if you aren't baptized you can get BoD assuming you fully intended of getting baptized but also profess the basic tenants of faith (Trinity+incarnation). This man did not die, he literally got baptized with water as per John 3:5..
Even if it doesn't, the Council of Trent very clearly does:I do not understand why the words "or the desire thereof" are apparently, the only words BODers seem to see.
Quibus verbis justifications impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adæ, in statum gratiæ, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum: quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest; sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,—as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, [Rom. 8:15,16,23] through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God. [Jn. 3:5]
Why on earth do BODers think Trent concludes the doctrine with John 3:5 "as it is written?"
Even if it doesn't, the Council of Trent very clearly does:
Quibus verbis justifications impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adæ, in statum gratiæ, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum: quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest; sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,—as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, [Rom. 8:15,16,23] through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God. [Jn. 3:5]
You keep misusing the phrase, "as it is written". This simply means that Trent is using 3:5 as proof for the prior statement. It's important because John 3:5 disambiguates the "without A or B" expression, but it's not being used in the sense that you've been using it.I'm not misusing it, I am saying it says that:
How it this an instance of BoD? Clearly this shows God's providence of bringing water baptism to those who He wills. Did the Eunuch even know about baptism inorder to desire it? Did he know about the Trinity and incarnation? Isn't the point of BoD that if you aren't baptized you can get BoD assuming you fully intended of getting baptized but also profess the basic tenants of faith (Trinity+incarnation). This man did not die, he literally got baptized with water as per John 3:5..Of course the eunuch knew about baptism, it was he who asked for it, "the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth it hinder me from being baptized?" (36) And Philip the deacon, beginning with the Isaiah quote "preached unto him Jesus." (35) I can only assume that Philip preached the Incarnation and the Trinity, what else would it mean to "preach Jesus"? I argue that in the history of the Church there might not be a clearer example of a person who "desired" baptism more than this eunuch. In the space of several hours he went from being a pagan to becoming a member of the Church, all because God fulfills his promise, "knock and it shall be opened."
Of course the eunuch knew about baptism, it was he who asked for it ...
So what? Simply because the Holy Ghost was working to inspire the proper dispositions and intention to receive Baptism, this does not mean "BoD", just as it didn't mean "BoD" in the Cornelius passage.I agree with you. My point is that there is no example which I know of in Scripture of the man who wanted baptism and somehow could not get it, and thus the modern-day understanding of BofD must be applied. The eunuch actually proves the contrary of BofD. My point is, if there were ever a candidate who could "get along without water baptism" it is this eunuch. God worked a miracle to ensure his water baptism, and by all accounts he had a pure, sincere votum for baptism.
Of course the eunuch knew about baptism, it was he who asked for it, "the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth it hinder me from being baptized?" (36) And Philip the deacon, beginning with the Isaiah quote "preached unto him Jesus." (35) I can only assume that Philip preached the Incarnation and the Trinity, what else would it mean to "preach Jesus"? I argue that in the history of the Church there might not be a clearer example of a person who "desired" baptism more than this eunuch. In the space of several hours he went from being a pagan to becoming a member of the Church, all because God fulfills his promise, "knock and it shall be opened.""34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?"
The administration of the sacraments end when time ends. Of course St. Thomas talks about the Eucharist continuing in heaven, etc. I personally believe, and the Church has never defined, that on the Last Day, those who may have not been baptized with water (should they actually exist), will be baptized with water before entering heaven. Provided there are human beings and water, baptism is possible.
There are two possible readings of this passage.
BoDers interpretation: "I cannot write a letter without a pen or a pencil." Either one suffices.
Non-BoDer interpretation: "There can be no wedding without the bride or the groom." Both are required.
We've spent the last 10-15 pages arguing about which is the correct reading of this passage.
The Catechism of Trent provides the solution to your interpretive dilemma:The key phase is "will avail them to grace and righteousness.", which is talked about in the earlier posts of this thread. Are grace and righteousness attributes of the dead, or the living?
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."
Regarding Adult Baptism
"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
The Church, in its gold standard Catechism, written by the same theologians who wrote the Council of Trent decrees, interpreted the phrase "aut ejus voto" as you say that the "BoDers" do, namely that "either one suffices" in the case of adults.
The key phase is "will avail them to grace and righteousness.", which is talked about in the earlier posts of this thread. Are grace and righteousness attributes of the dead, or the living?
The Catechism of Trent provides the solution to your interpretive dilemma:
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."
Regarding Adult Baptism
"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
The Church, in its gold standard Catechism, written by the same theologians who wrote the Council of Trent decrees, interpreted the phrase "aut ejus voto" as you say that the "BoDers" do, namely that "either one suffices" in the case of adults.
It shows desperation as his idol of "BoD" crumbles before his eyes.
The Catechism of Trent provides the solution to your interpretive dilemma:You bolded the wrong words so I fixed it.
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."
Regarding Adult Baptism
"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."
The Church, in its gold standard Catechism, written by the same theologians who wrote the Council of Trent decrees, interpreted the phrase "aut ejus voto" as you say that the "BoDers" do, namely that "either one suffices" in the case of adults.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particularAs regards the red text, note how Jєωs are singled out. Note how it is the Church ("ancient Councils") that set the rules of baptism ("by decree") for them in particular. Apparently, a BOD not apply to Jєωs.
care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to
profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn
ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the
Sacrament.
Angelus,What does "manhatten jury" mean?
You’re arguing before a “Manhattan jury.” May angels attend you.
DR
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.
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."
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)
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.
That’s one of the loudest echos to ever come from your echo chamber.
You won't listen to reason.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Session VI, 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.
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.
This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting ... the instrumental cause [of which justification] is the sacrament of baptism
finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.
But Trent's citation of Our Lord's teaching immediately disambiguates the passage.
Session VI, 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.
Another interesting point is that this here is the very end of the "dispositions" or "beginnings" of justification section, before the "justification itself follows", with the Sacrament being the instrumental cause.
This is a part of the preparation, and "justification itself" comes AFTER this, via Baptism. According to BoDer theory, justification itself should happen right here with the resolve to receive Baptism.
No, it doesn't, Ladislaus. You're arguing with Catholics here. Every Catholic Bible with annotations of the passage, every saint or doctor who has a commentary on the passage, every saint or doctor that has discussed the issue of BOD . . . they all to a man disagree with you.
Why would St. Peter juxtapose this passage from Trent with 2 citations from Church Fathers denying BoD for Catechumens if he interpreted this passage as teaching BoD? Eh?St Athansius was “against the world” when he stood up against the Arian heresy. Is St Peter one of the only post-Trent saints to stand against the BOD folly? It appears so.
But I'm glad that there may be others of good will paying attention to this threat, as it's irrefutable that Trent is NOT teaching any "Baptism of Desire" ... for the reasons re-explained above."threat" um l-lad :laugh1:
As I noted in the language of Trent itself, it says "in adults" there is a period of preparation before receipt of the sacrament, referring to the period of catechesis before baptism. There is, again, a distinction being made between adults and infants - as there is in the "other means" or "other remedy" language of the Catechism, Florence, and Pius XII - this time in terms of the administration of the sacrament.What about the Fathers before Trent like St Gregory nαzιanzus? He and many others denied or held strictly to water baptism but they opinions are never considered... (yes I know they are before Trent but Trent doesn't *clearly* define BoD).
You've convinced yourself that BOD is a phantom, that's all.
What about the Fathers before Trent like St Gregory nαzιanzus? He and many others denied or held strictly to water baptism but they opinions are never considered... (yes I know they are before Trent but Trent doesn't *clearly* define BoD).
Look, here's the bottom line for me. It's not a question of what I, you or anyone here thinks makes sense or what is right, but what God has determined to do. Has He determined to save men through water baptism alone since the promulgation of the Gospel, and determined that that is the sole way He will justify men and apply to them the Blood of Christ, without whom there is no redemption (Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 3)? John 3:5 can be read that way, and indeed some of the Fathers speak that way. As I have said, I was a former "Feeneyite" and am not adverse to that view (despite what some around here think).Happy Easter.
But it is ridiculous to argue, for example, that the Catechism of Trent doesn't speak of a BOD and therefore lend the authoritative, interpretive voice of the Church to the meaning of Session VI, Chapter 4 of the Counsel. Even the Dimonds recognize that the Catechism speaks of BOD, but reject it on other grounds. In my view, it's simply not credible to argue that the Catechism doesn't express BOD - kudos for the Dimonds for not making that weak argument.
But to argue - as the Dimonds do - that the Council doesn't speak of BOD in light of the Catechism necessitates a rejection - which is radical - of what most "Feeneyites" don't reject - a view of the Magisterium and its "indefectibility" on pre-Vatican II terms, such as the impossibility of the Ecclessia Docens to teach serious theological errors in propagating the Catholic faith. Most "Feeneyites" want to have their cake (rejection of BOD) and eat that too (the "indefectibility" of a Magisterium that has taught BOD in its catechisms, etc.).
I say you can have one - rejection of BOD - but not the other (belief in the "indefectibility" of the universal teaching of the hierarchy on matters as essential to the Catholic faith as justification and the necessity of the actual receipt of the sacrament of baptism).
I'll entertain with you or anyone else (as a former Feeneyite) the rejection of BOD, but not the acceptance of an "indefectible" Magisterium as traditionally understood. To do so would be to embrace a contradiction, which is incompatible with truth - which is the necessary condition (in my view, and indeed the dictate of infallible and "indefectible" logic/reason) for holding any belief.
Maybe it's just me, but that's my issue.
Happy Easter.
DR
But it is ridiculous to argue, for example, that the Catechism of Trent doesn't speak of a BOD and therefore lend the authoritative, interpretive voice of the Church to the meaning of Session VI, Chapter 4 of the Counsel. Even the Dimonds recognize that the Catechism speaks of BOD, but reject it on other grounds.
But to argue - as the Dimonds do - that the Council doesn't speak of BOD in light of the Catechism necessitates a rejection - which is radical - of what most "Feeneyites" don't reject - a view of the Magisterium and its "indefectibility" on pre-Vatican II terms, such as the impossibility of the Ecclessia Docens to teach serious theological errors in propagating the Catholic faith. Most "Feeneyites" want to have their cake (rejection of BOD) and eat that too (the "indefectibility" of a Magisterium that has taught BOD in its catechisms, etc.).
But to argue - as the Dimonds do - that the Council doesn't speak of BOD in light of the Catechism necessitates a rejection - which is radical - of what most "Feeneyites" don't reject - a view of the Magisterium and its "indefectibility" on pre-Vatican II terms, such as the impossibility of the Ecclessia Docens to teach serious theological errors in propagating the Catholic faith. Most "Feeneyites" want to have their cake (rejection of BOD) and eat that too (the "indefectibility" of a Magisterium that has taught BOD in its catechisms, etc.).
I say you can have one - rejection of BOD - but not the other (belief in the "indefectibility" of the universal teaching of the hierarchy on matters as essential to the Catholic faith as justification and the necessity of the actual receipt of the sacrament of baptism).
Before MHFM made their video on the Catechism of trent *teaching* BoD who used it as a talking point? From what I understand it was the dimonds who gave this false ammunition to BoDers.
And, as mentioned, what the Catechism writes does NOT translate to BoD. It simply states, almost as St. Ambrose did, regarding Valentinian, or St. Fulgentius did when he stated that God would keep someone alive until they could receive the Sacrament, that God will take care of a properly-disposed adult. Nowhere does it state the BoD principle: "If such a one were to die before the Sacrament, he would be saved." There's nothing in there along those lines, despite how hard the BoDers try to read that into it. We could be talking about a scenario where someone gets badly injured, and yet God keeps him alive long enough to receive the Sacrament. We could be talking about St. Ambrose's concept regarding Valentinian, that he would be "washed" even if not crowned. We don't know. And Trent doesn't answer the question either about HOW God would take care of such an individual. Once you take off the table the bad translation (probably deliberately bad, just like the "except through" translation of Trent) to "accident", which in English implies some kind of fatal mishap, but in the Latin does nothing of the sort, there's absolutely zero reference to the BoD thesis found in the Catechism.
The necessity of Baptism is so great that if anyone were to die without reception of Baptism, or at least desire for it, he could by no means enter heaven. Because infants are liable to danger of this sort, and can easily die, but still do not have capacities to desire Baptism, therefore it is necessary to baptize them as soon as possible. And although they do not understand that which they receive, nevertheless, the Church supplies that which it responds and pledges for them by means of the godparents, which suffices. Just as by Adam we have all fallen into sin and disfavor with God when we still did not know it, so also it is enough for God if, through Baptism and the Church, we are freed from sin and received in its grace even if we do not yet notice.
5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn 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.
. . .
Baptism Of Adults
With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.
They Should Not Delay Their Baptism Unduly
If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism. Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.
They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
Council of Florence, from the Bull, Cantate Domino
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)
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn 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.
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.
Decem,
The catechism isn't infallible. It can't be looked at as a "interpretation" of a council. That's not it's purpose and you're using this tool for the wrong job.
Secondly, to get a clear view of this catechism, we'd have to go back to the original latin. As has been proven many times, once things get "translated" from latin into vernacular languages, the opportunity for corruption/liberalism is great. One only has to use the "for many (latin)" and "for all (english)" heresy as an example. But such mis-translations/additions also happened way back in the 1600s.
Even then, no one is obligated to read, own or believe a catechism. I've never read Trent's catechism and I don't plan to. And this won't affect my salvation at all. Which means, a catechism isn't "doctrinal" (if it was, i'd have to give unquestionable assent to it) nor is it as important as you make it out to be.
As for your Valentinian spam, St. Ambrose likened this state to that of unbaptized martyrs, but says of the martyrs also that they are "washed but not crowned". In other words, St. Ambrose believed that this piety/zeal/confession could remit or wash sin but it could not result in "crowning", i.e. entering the Kingdom of Heaven and the Beatific Vision. In other words, a justification without salvation ... just as Father Feeney held.Before saying that St. Ambrose denies BoD, you must understand regeneration, the infusion of grace, what justification is and has been taught to be, and take the full context of the quote. MHFM conveniently cuts off the part where Ambrose prays for Valerians salvation.
So, fail on the Valentinian quote.
Above is the full quote. Look below to see how dishonest the cut up quote that MHFM posted on their site is:
51) But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request?* But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified his desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom)).
(52) Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected … He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace?
(53) Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.
In other words, a justification without salvation ... just as Father Feeney held.[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made inno-[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)][Page 24][/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]cent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.
Before saying that St. Ambrose denies BoD...."Again Fr. Laisney hurts his own argument. Brother Francis comments:
"Again Fr. Laisney hurts his own argument. Brother Francis comments:Once again, this does not prove your point. It is the chopped up quote with Brother Francis reading into it.
We would just like to make some brief points about the by-now-well-known "Funeral Oration' of St. Ambrose for his deceased friend, the Emperor Valentinian, which was hardly the occasion for a doctrinal treatise on baptism. It Is the earliest reference cited as 'proof for the early Church's belief in "Baptism of Desire." The text quoted usually begins thus: "But I hear you grieve because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Let us stop St. Ambrose at this point and reflect on what was just quoted. All of the faithful that have gathered for the memorial services of the Emperor were grieved. And why were they grieved? St. Ambrose says they were grieved because there was no evidence that the Emperor, who was known to be a catechumen, had been baptized. Now If "Baptism of Desire" was something contained in the "deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why then would these faithful be grieved that Valentinlan had not been baptized with water?
The reason these faithful were grieved was because they believed that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." Perhaps too, they had been Instructed by Ambrose himself, who said: 'One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: 'For unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.' Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace." - (De Mysterlls,-THE DIVINE OFFICE).
However, the fact remains that St. Ambrose seems to contradict these above words when, in the funeral oration, he asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for?" And then concludes, "Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it."
Was St. Ambrose guilty of the "presumption" of which Father Laisney writes? We think not. We think that the Saint
was merely trying to console bereaved friends, himself included. We also think that, despite his stated opinion to the contrary, Ambrose had no way of knowing, with certainty, that Valentinian had not been baptized.
In summary, on the one hand, St. Ambrose's words bespeak his hope that Valentinian was provided with the requisites of salvation. On the other hand, this quotation does not tell us that Valentinian died without Baptism. We may just as easily speculate that before he died, one of his ministers or servants baptized him, something which St. Ambrose had as yet not gotten news of. Again, our not knowing something is not a proof of anything.
Further, St. Ambrose's use of these two verses from the Scriptures is not proof that the Scriptures mean what the Saint is illustrating, or rather, what Father Laisney is trying to prove. Here Father is taking advantage of his readers' possible want of knowledge as to how we who preach may apply the Scriptures..."
I won't go through the mental gymnastics necessary to make God absent during a salvific BOD event. I am of the opinion that the whole idea of preaching a BOD displeases Almighty God because it's saying there are situations where God finds it impossible to provide the sacrament which He made a requirement for salvation.
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the skeptics." - Fr. Feeney
yes that is 100% correct. To receive baptism of desire of blood to to be Baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
You are condemned here along with feeney on you erroneous idea that you can be justified and not be saved.
Above is the full quote. Look below to see how dishonest the cut up quote that MHFM posted on their site is:
St. Ambrose, Funeral Oration of Valentinian, 4th century: “But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacraments of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request? But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come to Italy, he would be initiated… Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wis. 4:7)… Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him, also.”[1] (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/st-ambrose-and-baptism-of-desire/#_edn1)
What about the Fathers before Trent like St Gregory nαzιanzus? He and many others denied or held strictly to water baptism but they opinions are never considered... (yes I know they are before Trent but Trent doesn't *clearly* define BoD).
yes that is 100% correct. To receive baptism of desire of blood to to be Baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Ambrose is saying that belief alone does not save. Just as Trent says, belief AND Baptism regenerates and justifies. In your view, do ST Augustine and ST Ambrose disagree on Baptism of blood and desire sufficing? Look at my posts on page 30, and you will see all the info you need.To be honest I didn't read your posts, they were long winded and seemed like fallible cope. Short and concise is easier on the attention span.
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of FlorenceBoB is infallibly destroyed by Pope Eugene IV at Florence in Cantate Domino. You can quote hundreds of fallible statements of theological speculation, but unless you have infallible statements, then I do not care. Because the Church infallibly says, No/Cope to Baptism of blood.
"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
To be honest I didn't read your posts, they were long winded and seemed like fallible cope. Short and concise is easier on the attention span.Also to add onto this. The font size was too big. Normal font size is much more legible.
Sorry I seem rude but I am tired of this three baptism cope and invincible ignorance heresy, even my sspx priest has mentioned it and sending him infallible quotes didn't help him. They just ignore and regurgitate the same fallible statements....
Pope St. Sulpicius dogmatically condemned it when he wrote that each and every one of those desiring Baptism would lose the Kingdom if they did not receive the Sacrament before they died (here he was urging emergency Baptism for those in danger of death). Nothing could be more clear. But somehow this one is ignored by the BoDers, who rely instead on some confusing and dubious nonsense by one or another of the Innocent popes, who also were known to have opined erroneous in various letters about other subjects as well as their reading of BoD into Trent, and there's no evidence that it's there, and certainly no positive statement that it's required belief, but merely leaving it open as a speculative possibility (even if you believe that it had BoD in mind with the votum passage).Do you have a source and quote for this? I want to add it to my collection.
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.DR, it seems to us, is participating in libelous behavior. Libel, unlike its opposite, Slander, is a "published, untrue, defamatory statement." Slander is similar, but the act is done behind the person's back, not publicly. DR claims that Lad is "like a Jehovah Witness." This is akin to telling a woman that she is "like a prostitute." She may or may not be a prostitute, but the statement suggests that if she is not so in fact, her behavior (her will) is such that she would easily lend herself to the lifestyle of a prostitute. If I suspected that a Catholic woman was immodest, it would occur to me to suggest to her politely that a particular action was immodest. And we add that it is better to be a prostitute than a Jehovah Witness. The sin of libel requires a public retraction, especially when the matter is grave.
Here's some reason.
The Catechism, quoted by Angelus, says:
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:
This is also consistent with Pius XII in his address to midwives:
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.
In your reliance on an exclusive and literal reading of John 3:5Pt1, a literal reading of Scripture is the default practice, unless the Church tells us otherwise.
Do you have a source and quote for this? I want to add it to my collection.
Also I don't see the Church improving until this 'hurdle' is overcome. Will the Son of Man find faith?
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
LATIN: "Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.
“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
To be honest I didn't read your posts, they were long winded and seemed like fallible cope. Short and concise is easier on the attention span.“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.
The Church has never taught Baptism of blood, and even refutes the very notion.
BoB is infallibly destroyed by Pope Eugene IV at Florence in Cantate Domino. You can quote hundreds of fallible statements of theological speculation, but unless you have infallible statements, then I do not care. Because the Church infallibly says, No/Cope to Baptism of blood.
Sorry I seem rude but I am tired of this three baptism cope and invincible ignorance heresy, even my sspx priest has mentioned it and sending him infallible quotes didn't help him. They just ignore and regurgitate the same fallible statements....
As blessed Eugene IV stated. No 'good' produces eternal reward for a person if they aren't united in the Church. Even shedding blood does not avail you to the beatific vision (which is certainly an eternal reward).
I don't know how ladislaus goes through walls of text of the same exact arguments over and over... But I'm glad he does.
You have no idea what you're talking about, NonCathlicInAmerica.Instead of name calling how about you show that YOUR POSITION is Compatible with Trent and Catholic teaching. How can one be Justified but not saved? Save the name calling for someone who is not of good will. I am trying to have a discussion.
According to St. Ambrose, there's a state of washing without crowning. You do realize, right?, the the notion of CROWNing referred to entering the KINGdom of Heaven.Explain this using the quote above and other quotes of ST. Ambrose then. I showed my citations now show
Pope St. Sulpicius dogmatically taught that ALL those who while desiring the Sacrament of Baptism died before receiving it would lose the Kingdom of Heaven.
5-6 Church Fathers rejected Baptism of Desire, several explicitly. St. Augustine floated the idea in his youth but then later forcefully retracted it (he published an entire large book later in life called Corrections). St. Ambrose speculated about a state of being washed without being crowned, while elsewhere declaring that Catechumens who die before initiated cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Pope St. Sulpicius dogmatically rejected Baptism of Desire (a quote, like many others, that is strangely ommitted by BoDers). You'll never see a BoDer quote the contrary evidence, but they selectively cherry-pick the one or two tenuous and tentative sources they can find in support of their speculation.
Baptism alone does not save, in the same way that Faith alone does not save.False. A valid sacramental baptism saves.
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.Here's your problem. You are incorrectly using these terms, and causing confusion.
Having Faith.. I.E. being in the bosom of the Church.There is natural faith and supernatural faith. Supernatural Faith ONLY comes from the sacrament of baptism. Ergo, only those who are baptized can be 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.An unrepentent heretic, I agree. Typically, a heretic refers to a former member of the Church, which means they were already baptized, so all that they need to do to be saved is repent and confess. I doubt an unrepentent heretic would die for the Church. Seems contradictory. But if they did, yes, they would not be saved.
False. A valid sacramental baptism saves.False. A valid sacramental baptism saves.
Here's your problem. You are incorrectly using these terms, and causing confusion.
1. The common understanding of "baptism of water" implies that it is valid, which further implies the person was properly disposed, which further implies they had natural faith.
2. If one has been properly baptized, then they have received Supernatural Faith, which saves.
3. One cannot have Supernatural/salvific Faith before/without the sacrament of baptism.
4. If you are arguing that one can have Faith before/outside/without the sacrament, this is heresy.
5. If you are using the phrase "baptism of water" to simply mean the pouring of water upon a person who doesn't want to be baptized, then your phrase is wrong and confusing.
There is natural faith and supernatural faith. Supernatural Faith ONLY comes from the sacrament of baptism. Ergo, only those who are baptized can be in the bosom of the Church.
"Having Faith" refers to natural faith, which, as Scripture says, "comes from hearing". This is also akin to "having the will/desire" to be a member of the Church. But no one can WILL to do anything supernatural; this is heresy. All things supernatural are a gift from God, which we can ONLY get from the Church, through the sacraments.
If by "having Faith" you mean being sacramentally baptized, then I agree. But again, your language is imprecise.
An unrepentent heretic, I agree. Typically, a heretic refers to a former member of the Church, which means they were already baptized, so all that they need to do to be saved is repent and confess. I doubt an unrepentent heretic would die for the Church. Seems contradictory. But if they did, yes, they would not be saved.
“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. If you understand the true teaching on Justification...Ah I see! Great to hear Trent explained Florence otherwise we stupid laypeople would all assume that "even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ" means exactly what it says.
Instead of name calling how about you show that YOUR POSITION is Compatible with Trent and Catholic teaching. How can one be Justified but not saved? Save the name calling for someone who is not of good will. I am trying to have a discussion.
Explain this using the quote above and other quotes of ST. Ambrose then. I showed my citations now show
yours
We've spent pages on this ... in this very thread. Then you jump on at the end and insist on our reposting everything. Go back and read the thread.I'm baffled how you can believe there can be regeneration without complete remission of sin.
You and I agree on this point.. I was saying what trent says, justification (for someone with the use of reason) is not just the mere act of baptism, it must be preceded by faith.Natural faith comes before baptism, which, I agree is a requirement for the sacrament. But natural faith cannot save.
This is what I mean by Faith^Right, Trent is referring to natural faith, which we get "by hearing" (i.e. by the human 5 senses).
DR, it seems to us, is participating in libelous behavior. Libel, unlike its opposite, Slander, is a "published, untrue, defamatory statement." Slander is similar, but the act is done behind the person's back, not publicly. DR claims that Lad is "like a Jehovah Witness." This is akin to telling a woman that she is "like a prostitute." She may or may not be a prostitute, but the statement suggests that if she is not so in fact, her behavior (her will) is such that she would easily lend herself to the lifestyle of a prostitute. If I suspected that a Catholic woman was immodest, it would occur to me to suggest to her politely that a particular action was immodest. And we add that it is better to be a prostitute than a Jehovah Witness. The sin of libel requires a public retraction, especially when the matter is grave.
While I clearly disagree with some of you on the subject EENS, I would never impute to anyone on this forum the label of "Jehovah Witness." JW's are notorious heretics who, in large part, deny the divinity of Christ. JW's are divided among themselves, as I have had some of them agree to Christ's divinity, and others not. Most JW's have no idea what they believe when seriously questioned. Most JW's are "pertinacious" in heresy, meaning that once it has been made known them that there is a Catholic Church, and this shurch has always, from the time of the apostles, taught the divinity of Christ, they are obligated to investigate it. I always invite JW's to my house to discuss the Truth, especially when they attempt to walk away in droves. I have had some who seem more honest than others, as I often engage several at a time, employing the classic Vin Lewis tactics of asking simple yes/no questions. I remind the JW's that they have a moral obligation to investigate what I tell them, that on the Last Day, they will not have the excuse, "I did not know the truth" or some other such lie, and that they will be damned should they fail to heed what I tell them. We want to be sure that we "clear the way," and not allow any room for any "invincible ignorance."
No Decem, Lad is not at all like the JW's. And like it or not Decem, Lad has a very good idea of what he believes, unlike the JW's.
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong ; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re ; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. *(footnote: * Summa 3, Q. G8, a. 2. corp. ad 2. et ad 3.)
Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, &c, in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re ; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for any thing more than this ; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them as belonging in effect to the body, as they certainly do, than it is to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul; for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is possible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition.
http://orestesbrownson.org/210.html (http://orestesbrownson.org/210.html)
DR, it seems to us, is participating in libelous behavior. Libel, unlike its opposite, Slander, is a "published, untrue, defamatory statement." Slander is similar, but the act is done behind the person's back, not publicly. DR claims that Lad is "like a Jehovah Witness." This is akin to telling a woman that she is "like a prostitute." She may or may not be a prostitute, but the statement suggests that if she is not so in fact, her behavior (her will) is such that she would easily lend herself to the lifestyle of a prostitute. If I suspected that a Catholic woman was immodest, it would occur to me to suggest to her politely that a particular action was immodest. And we add that it is better to be a prostitute than a Jehovah Witness. The sin of libel requires a public retraction, especially when the matter is grave.
While I clearly disagree with some of you on the subject EENS, I would never impute to anyone on this forum the label of "Jehovah Witness." JW's are notorious heretics who, in large part, deny the divinity of Christ. JW's are divided among themselves, as I have had some of them agree to Christ's divinity, and others not. Most JW's have no idea what they believe when seriously questioned. Most JW's are "pertinacious" in heresy, meaning that once it has been made known them that there is a Catholic Church, and this same Church has always, from the time of the apostles, taught the divinity of Christ, they are obligated to investigate it. I always invite JW's to my house to discuss the Truth, especially when they attempt to walk away in droves. I have had some who seem more honest than others, as I often engage several at a time, employing the classic Vin Lewis tactics of asking simple yes/no questions. I remind the JW's that they have a moral obligation to investigate what I tell them, that on the Last Day, they will not have the excuse, "I did not know the truth" or some other such lie, and that they will be damned should they fail to heed what I tell them. We want to be sure that we "clear the way," and not allow any room for any "invincible ignorance."
No Decem, Lad is not at all like the JW's. And like it or not Decem, Lad has a very good idea of what he believes, unlike the JW's.
what Brownson1847 wrote regarding the possibility of justification/salvationI admire Mr Brownson for his commentary on many things in the social/political realm. His opinions on theology are just as good as mine; he's not even a cleric. Who cares what he thinks of BOD? :laugh1:
I'm baffled how you can believe there can be regeneration without complete remission of sin.
I admire Mr Brownson for his commentary on many things in the social/political realm. His opinions on theology are just as good as mine; he's not even a cleric. Who cares what he thinks of BOD? :laugh1:
Who, me? I've cited those same passages from Trent in this very thread to say the exact opposite of what you attribute to me above.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?
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?
BTW, who is the "us"? Do you fancy yourself a monarch . . . or the pope?I do sort of feel like a monarch in my own home, but that is by way of analogy. As to your Brownson quote, it is part two of the article, "The Great Question." Brownson wrote the article in opposition to Mr. Penny, an Anglican who converted to the Church. Brownson sums up his purpose for the writing of the article in part I: "The point, then, at which we are to aim cannot be doubtful. We are called specially to convince the American population that they have souls, souls to be saved or lost, and which cannot be saved without Jesus Christ in his Church." The entire thrust of the article is aimed against liberalism, it is a condemnation of Protestantism, and the attempt to understand Catholic truth in a Protestant country or civilization. Brownson toward the end of the article mentions Bellarmine and others, but does not defend what you claim he defends. Brownson has written more than any man in history, as the picture should amply prove. A man can hide within the works of Brownson and almost defend any position, without giving any context. Brownson never held some watered-down version of a heretic being saved because he "desired it." Brownson in many ways is the epitome of the man who "desired" the Truth, and thus it was revealed to him. He grew up in the Green Mountains of Vermont, without any schooling, without any Catholic church, and without any person telling him what to do to be saved. He consumed books and read dictionaries, teaching himself all the romance languages, Greek and Latin, and all else.
I do sort of feel like a monarch in my own home, but that is by way of analogy. As to your Brownson quote, it is part two of the article, "The Great Question." Brownson wrote the article in opposition to Mr. Penny, an Anglican who converted to the Church. Brownson sums up his purpose for the writing of the article in part I: "The point, then, at which we are to aim cannot be doubtful. We are called specially to convince the American population that they have souls, souls to be saved or lost, and which cannot be saved without Jesus Christ in his Church." The entire thrust of the article is aimed against liberalism, it is a condemnation of Protestantism, and the attempt to understand Catholic truth in a Protestant country or civilization. Brownson toward the end of the article mentions Bellarmine and others, but does not defend what you claim he defends. Brownson has written more than any man in history, as the picture should amply prove. A man can hide within the works of Brownson and almost defend any position, without giving any context. Brownson never held some watered-down version of a heretic being saved because he "desired it." Brownson in many ways is the epitome of the man who "desired" the Truth, and thus it was revealed to him. He grew up in the Green Mountains of Vermont, without any schooling, without any Catholic church, and without any person telling him what to do to be saved. He consumed books and read dictionaries, teaching himself all the romance languages, Greek and Latin, and all else.
Brownson in his own day was misunderstood by laymen, priests, and bishops, and accused of things which he neither asserted nor believed. These people who either did not read Brownson, or having read him sloppily, misunderstood him, were not Vatican II theologians. Many of them were theologians formed in the American seminaries, seminaries in the 1800's. There is a reason that the fathers at the Council of Baltimore sent a letter to Dr. Brownson declaring him "Defender of the Faith." Brownson was not some two-bit theologian, opening the door of salvation to any liberal who whines loudly enough. Brownson once picked up a Protestant and threw him over a wood-burning stove because he would not shut his mouth about Our Lady.
(https://i.imgur.com/cX4DDht.jpg)
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?
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
“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.
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.
He's sidestepping as usual. You can find quotes all over here from him about justification without salvation or regeneration.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
St Alphonsus also needs to explain why he disagreed with Trent. See new thread on the topic.
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.
I've spent several pages on this subject during the thread. Go back and read it instead of hopping on 25+ pages in and then demanding that I repost stuff that I've already explained. There's zero way that your BoD interpretation of Trent can hold water. No one refuted my reasoning.I wasn't referring to BoD here, I was asking for an explanation on how your view of non saving Justification is in line with Trent's decree.
I used to believe in BoD because I thought, "Trent taught it." But then I sat down one day to read all of Trent in Latin (vs. a sentence taken out of context and in misleading English translation) and I thought, "Wait a minute. There's no BoD here anywhere. What are they talking about?" And I re-read it looking for "BoD" but no signs of it were to be found.
But people just beg the question, read BoD into Trent, and then keep repasting it assuming that your interpretation is true. It's not. But let's say for a moment that your reading of it is correct. An honest BoDer here on CI, ByzCat, recognized that Trent is not teaching BoD as required for belief but rather, permitted for belief, effectively saying, "You can't say that Baptism isn't necessary at least in desire without being a heretic." There's no positive teaching anywhere that positively states that the votum would suffice for justification, no Canon that states, "If anyone says that votum alone without the Sacrament suffices for justification, let him be anathema." If Trent were teaching the alleged "Three Baptisms," where's the mention of BoB? In fact, if you read Trent the BoDer way, there's no such thing as BoB. And, if you read Trent the BoDer way, as an either / or for justification, the logical corollary is that there can be justification WITHOUT Baptism, but that's condemned as heretical by Trent. So you would have Trent be teaching the same heresy it condemns. Finally, the proof text that Trent gives for justification would be absurd, making Trent teach, "You can be justified by the laver or the desire, because Christ taught that both water AND the Holy Ghost are necessary for justification." It's preposterous and these arguments have never been refuted. You just keep re-pasting Trent while assuming that the BoDer understanding of it is the correct one. It's not.
I wasn't referring to BoD here, I was asking for an explanation on how your view of non saving Justification is in line with Trent's decree.
What are you babbling about again? You're reading that justification always saves into Trent. You read your nonsense into Trent and then claim your distortion of Trent is what Trent taught.You know exactly what I am "babbling about". You said " In other words, a justification without salvation ... just as Father Feeney held." I want you to explain this. I posted my argument that to be justified is to be saved. Now please post yours. If I am "reading into" trent and my view is in error then correct me. I posted on page 30 my quotes that go against your view of justification without saving.
You know exactly what I am "babbling about".
No, I really don't. If you're talking about initial justification not placing positive obstacles to salvation, that's all it says, not that it suffices for entry into the Kingdom. St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist also had no obstacles positive obstacles in terms of guilt of sin, but they couldn't enter Heaven regardless. Not having positive obstacles is not the same thing as having been elevated to the state in which one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That's my theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of Trent that we're arguing about, but was thrown out there as a distraction from your being unable to refute my arguments..Yes. I will say now: the way that we are reading it, the quote is erroneous. However ST Alphonsus is not a heretic, so is there a chance we are reading it wrong? Maybe a temporary lapse? All I know is that he is in heaven.
Are you prepared to denounce St. Alphonsus' theory that temporal punishment can remain after initil justification by BoD? Because if you don't, then you have nothing to stand on in denouncing my theory either.
Indeed. St. Augustine wrote that "if you wish to be Catholic" you must reject the idea that God can be prevented from bringing the Sacrament to His elect. It's a complete lack of faith in God, that for God all things are possible (with no effort on His part).Can I get a source on St Augustine's later position on BoD? Will be very helpful.
Here's the sum total of all "evidence" in favor of BoD:Bump. This is good info. Edited the name of Siricius since it was wrong.
1) youthful speculation of St. Augustine (later retracted)
2) unclear statement from St. Ambrose (where he still says that neither BoD/BoB result in crowning)
3) Innocent II/III opining in its favor (one docuмent is of disputed authenticity, another a letter written to a bishop, not a teaching of his office ... and in a similar letter he promoted a seriously erroneous opinion ... relying on "authority" of Augustine / Ambrose, which is tentative at best -- see above, and ignores the 5-6 Church Fathers who rejected the idea)
4) after a 600-year complete silence about BoD, debate among pre-scholastics (Abelard vs. Hugh of St. Victor), where St. Bernard tentatively sides with Hugh in saying "I'd rather err with Augustine than be right on my own."). Peter Lombard then goes with that.
5) from there, St. Thomas opines in its favor
6) alleged interpretation of Trent, which IMO was clearly NOT trying to teach BoD and at best left the issue open
7) Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus opine in its favor (without any theological proof, but, for Bellarmine, going with it because the contrary "seems too harsh")
8) theologians who are at the same time undermining/denying EENS jumping on the BoD bandwagon
9) no theological (syllogistic) proof ever offered for BoD, just gratuitous statements along the lines of "yep, BoD"
10) misinterpreted 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is saying nothing more than that Catechumens may received Christian burial (contrary to earlier Church practice)
In order for something to be definable, it has to either ...
1) be known to have been revealed through unanimous dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers (more Fathers reject BoD than tentatively and temporarily accepted it)
2) derive logically and necessarily from other revealed dogma (no theological proof for BoD has ever been produced)
BoD is nothing but pure speculation.
Pope St. Siricius dogmatically condemned it when he wrote that each and every one of those desiring Baptism would lose the Kingdom if they did not receive the Sacrament before they died (here he was urging emergency Baptism for those in danger of death). Nothing could be more clear. But somehow this one is ignored by the BoDers, who rely instead on some confusing and dubious nonsense by one or another of the Innocent popes, who also were known to have opined erroneous in various letters about other subjects as well as their reading of BoD into Trent, and there's no evidence that it's there, and certainly no positive statement that it's required belief, but merely leaving it open as a speculative possibility (even if you believe that it had BoD in mind with the votum passage).
Bump. This is good info. Edited the name of Siricius since it was wrong.
Can I get a source on St Augustine's later position on BoD? Will be very helpful.
Thanks. What did I have there?Sulpicius