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

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire  (Read 64421 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #285 on: April 02, 2023, 01:14:02 PM »
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.  

Lad,

Thank you for the thoughtful post. 

You make a good point that it is important not to conflate BOD and EENS. The original issue concerning St. Benedict Center and Fr. Feeney concerned whether an explicit desire to enter the Catholic Church (recognized as such) was necessary, and this is reflected in the Holy Office Letter of 1949. It did not originally involve BOD, which was recognized in a very limited form by the position which the HOL addressed and condemned, for whatever value one wants to put upon the "condemnation" in the HOL. It's ironic in some 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.

Now, here's the thing with what you say about the Augustinian view of the fate of unbaptized infants: it's somewhat speculative. We  didn't have catechisms, or official compendiums of the Catholic faith until the late 16th century. So you have to take the word of, for example, the CE when it says that.

But now we can look at those catechisms now and see that I think all of them issued post-Trent reference BOD.  So we know, through a handy and definitive way of identification, that BOD is the prevailing and dominant Catholic view since Trent. I'm not disputing your conclusion,  just noting its assertion to "prevailing and dominant" is subject to uncertainty that compromises the weight or value to be put upon the point.

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #286 on: April 02, 2023, 04:33:38 PM »
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.

Let's look at this again. Below, in bold, is Canon 30 from the Trent "Decree on Justification" (in Session 6). This Canon, the one I originally quoted, is from the "Canons on Justification," not as you mistakenly claim "Canons on Confession [Penance]," which are in Session 14.

"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." (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm)

Read Canon 30 again carefully. Nowhere in that canon will you find any exclusive reference to any Sacrament (Penance or otherwise). Canon 30 refers to the general concept of "the grace of justification." However, you are correct that Canon 30 is definitely relevant to the Sacrament of Penance as well as to the "desire for [the bath of regeneration]."

Justification occurs when an alienated soul is brought into friendship with God. Justification can occur (1) in the Sacrament of Baptism, (2) in the "desire for [the bath of regeneration]," or (3) in the Sacrament of Penance (what Trent calls, in Session 6, Chapter 14, the "second plank." All of these three things can bring about "the grace of justification" in the soul. But not all of them affect the debt of temporal punishment in the same way.

Canon 30 from the "Canons on Justification" anathematizes your claim that no temporal punishment can remain after the justification that is produced specifically from "desire for [the bath of regeneration]," aka Tridentine BoD. After "desire for [the bath of regeneration]," the debt for temporal punishment remains, as St. Alphonsus said in quote posted by you earlier in this thread. 

In the justification that results from the Sacrament of Penance, you are, again, incorrect (and again, your statement is anathematized by Canon 30) because the Sacrament of Penance, while justifying the sinner, it does not remit all temporal punishment for sin.

However, in the justification that results from the Sacrament of Baptism, you are correct (and I never claimed otherwise) that no temporal punishment can remain after that type of rebirth. It is, after all, Catholicism 101 that the Sacrament of Baptism has the unique ability to remit both eternal and temporal debt.

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.


Offline St Giles

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #287 on: April 02, 2023, 05:10:38 PM »
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.

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #288 on: April 02, 2023, 05:43:41 PM »
Read Canon 30 again carefully. Nowhere in that canon will you find any exclusive reference to any Sacrament (Penance or otherwise).


"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."




http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm



Session V,

Concerning Original Sin,

First Decree

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 innocent, 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.




Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #289 on: April 02, 2023, 05:53:30 PM »
 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)