Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 41341 times)

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #60 on:** March 18, 2023, 06:23:07 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 18, 2023, 09:14:03 AM

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.

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.

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:

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

"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)

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #61 on:** March 18, 2023, 06:28:43 PM »

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy on March 18, 2023, 08:37:25 AM

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.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #62 on:** March 18, 2023, 06:32:31 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 18, 2023, 08:02:25 AM

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

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.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #63 on:** March 18, 2023, 06:46:30 PM »

Quote from: Vanguard on March 18, 2023, 08:41:10 AM

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.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly, Vanguard.
The debate of this thread, BOD, relates to whether or not God can infuse such virtues (in this specific scenario of the Catechumen) without the sacrament of Baptism. More specifically, it is about whether or not The Catechism of The Council of Trent teaches this. I have posted above what the Catechism teaches. There is the answer.
I particularly agree with your statement "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. I think if people want the true Faith, God will provide". Indeed He will.
Yes, let us pray for their conversion. We cannot underestimate the blessing that God has given us in the true Faith.

Stubborn · « **Reply #64 on:** March 20, 2023, 04:41:40 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 18, 2023, 06:23:07 PM

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:

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

"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)

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..."

Ok, the catechism first off states that there is no danger of death involved, if there were, then the adult must be be baptized asap like infants who are more prone shall we say, to die at any time. However, when there actually *is* the danger of death, the very next chapter teaches that "In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once."

To continue with the first part where it says: "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."

Note that "grace and righteousness" are attributes of the living, not the dead. Neither Trent nor it's catechism are talking about the attainment of salvation here, which is an attribute of the dead, not the living, which means quoting this part of the catechism to show it's contrariness to John 3:5 and Trent's application of it, is a non sequitur.

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.

As I said earlier in this thread, "Neither Trent nor it's catechism taught it. Trent actually clearly and explicitly condemns it. The only possible way to get a BOD out of either is to first read a BOD *into* them. Which means one must read meanings into words which the words they read do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #65 on:** March 20, 2023, 05:57:36 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 18, 2023, 06:23:07 PM

It is curious though, looking at the title of this thread, no one has addressed the issues that the CATECHISM of the Council of Trent does indeed very explicitly teach BOD, as demonstrated by the excerpt that I posted earlier:

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #66 on:** March 20, 2023, 06:05:49 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 18, 2023, 06:23:07 PM

"With regard adults who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, for instance, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out a different manner of proceeding... On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this sacrament hastily: She will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." (p124,125 of the text)

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #67 on:** March 20, 2023, 06:16:36 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 20, 2023, 04:41:40 AM

Also note that there is *no* mention of accidental death, only an "unforeseen accident," which could mean literally any unforeseen event *except death* that impedes the catechumen from receiving the sacrament as planned, anything from the priest having to reschedule due to an emergency, to the catechumen's car not starting, to whatever other "unforeseen accident" you can think of, except unforeseen accidental death.

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

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #68 on:** March 20, 2023, 06:18:42 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 18, 2023, 06:23:07 PM

"... their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." (p124,125 of the text)

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

Stubborn · « **Reply #69 on:** March 20, 2023, 06:59:29 AM »

I don't know already, it's the same arguments repeated over and over.

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

And there are those who believe defined doctrines, John 3:5 etc., but are convinced that all those teachings have exceptions built into them somehow, which apparently, is why they not only see no contradiction whatsoever, instead they're convinced a BOD is a doctrine of the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #70 on:** March 20, 2023, 07:22:43 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 20, 2023, 06:59:29 AM

I don't know already, it's the same arguments repeated over and over.

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

And there are those who believe defined doctrines, John 3:5 etc., but are convinced that all those teachings have exceptions built into them somehow, which apparently, is why they not only see no contradiction whatsoever, instead they're convinced a BOD is a doctrine of the Church.

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #71 on:** March 20, 2023, 07:57:51 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2023, 07:22:43 AM

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

DecemRationis · « **Reply #72 on:** March 20, 2023, 12:31:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 20, 2023, 06:18:42 AM

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

Huh? Where's the "deprivation" of baptism in such a case? If they ultimately receive baptism, they're not "deprived" of baptism. And for adults, there's a delay during catechesis even without "any unforeseen accident." So there would be no need to even mention any "unforeseen accident": all the Catechism would need say is, "no danger in or of delay," period. You could remove the "unforeseen accident"; it's utterly gratuitous in your scenario.

The Catechism says:

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)

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:

Quote

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 "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."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #73 on:** March 20, 2023, 12:33:39 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 20, 2023, 12:31:02 PM

Huh? Where's the "deprivation" of baptism in such a case?

There isn't any. That's the entire point. And there's no mention of deprivation of Baptism in the Catechism either. This expression of the intention to receive the Sacrament "availing" for St. Fulgentius referred to the confession availing in the sense that God would keep him alive until the Sacrament. And there's nothing different there in the Catechism either.

That expression "should any unforseen accident deprive adults of baptism" is a gross mistranslation, whereas the sense is really, "if there were to arise any circuмstance that might deprive adults of Baptism". All this passage says is that God's grace, in response to their good dispositions, would see them through these obstacles to grace and righteousness. It's entirely silent on how, and could just as easily be completed by the thought of St. Fulgentius, where God would keep him in this life until he could receive the Sacrament. This is subjunctive mood, which means not that they have been deprived but that the might (otherwise) be deprived.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #74 on:** March 20, 2023, 12:36:03 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 20, 2023, 12:31:02 PM

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.

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 41341 times)

Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Stubborn

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Stubborn

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Stubborn

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

DecemRationis

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire