If this chart doesn't post, I also uploaded it.





. . . 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.

Sorry, the category of "forced baptism" is impossible in the context of Justification. Read Session 6, chapter 6, on Preparation. In the context of Justification, a "forced baptism" would not be possible because the internal conversion of the sinner must happen before either the Sacrament is received or the "desire for the Sacrament" in manifested.

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.

This interpretation also agrees with the section from the Roman Catechism quoted above when discussing adult catechumens. And with all the Saints who are Doctors of the Church who have been quoted in this thread. And with the perennial practice of the Roman Catholic Church which recommends many months of preparation before adults receive the Sacrament.

Father Kramer to the Feeneyites

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/father-kramer-to-the-feeneyites/

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").

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/father-kramer-to-the-feeneyites/msg389281/#msg389281

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.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/father-kramer-to-the-feeneyites/msg389434/#msg389434

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.

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)  ?

That's precisely my point, you think the sacrament alone suffices for justification.

Laver of regeneration alone =  no desire

The reception of the Sacrament alone does suffice for justification. But the Sacrament cannot be validly received if the recipient is forced to receive it. In the Catechism of Trent, in the Sacrament of Baptism chapter, Section "Dispositions for Baptism," it states,

"The faithful are to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place, they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord: it is to be forced on none."

So the "desire" in the phrase ["without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it"] is the "desire for the Sacrament" (as in a catechumen's desire). At root, it is a recognition of one's sinfulness and a desire to be cleansed of that sin. The Sacrament is the normal instrument of that cleansing. 

The "desire" referred to in Trent is not some generalized "desire to go to Heaven." Yes, justification assumes that generalized desire to be saved. But that generalized desire is not sufficient. It must be joined with an act of the will which DECIDES to receive the Sacrament of Baptism because the catechumen recognizes that he must be cleansed of sin before he can go to Heaven, which requires the Preparation discussed earlier.

The Anti-BoDers fail to understand the proper understanding of BoD, and assume that all supporters of BoD are Rahnerian Universal Salvation lunatics. That is not what Tridentine BoD, properly understood, is referring to. The Anti-BoDers throw out the baby with the bath water. And in doing so, they teach heresy.

As described in that paragraph, one is "translated" from the "state of sin" into a "state of grace" (which translation ends in what is called "justification") by either receiving the Sacrament of Baptism OR the "desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism." Exactly what God does with the justified soul, which through no fault of his own cannot receive the Sacrament he desires and has made a decision to seek, is not discussed in the Trent decrees. Trent just says that he is "justified."

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

I'm trying to find a source to confirm that it would be invalid, rather than merely illicit.

In other words, if the character of Baptism is still received, despite being forced, that would be valid, but illicit.

If a forced baptism is invalid, then there is no other way of reading the text, and no sacrament is conferred. Thus, the term laver of refrigeration could not mean anything other than the Sacrament of Baptism with the desire included implicitly in that term.

These are great questions, getting to the heart of the matter, Trad123.  I will have to study.

This is what it boils down to:


. . . 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).

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.

If I were to say instead "The laver of regeneration is absolutely required for salvation", that would be even more specific, because it specifies regeneration and therefore could not mean a baptism in which one of the necessary conditions (desire) were missing.

Why would Trent pick out just one of the necessary conditions for such a statement? If it were the intention of the Council to tell us that desire on the part of the recipient were a necessary condition then surely it would have done it in a more direct manner. 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 - as the Tridentine Catechism explained, and the Doctors Bellarmine and Liguori understood, and every theology manual since. Has anyone ever produced one example since Trent of a theologian saying "BOD is nonsense, the sacrament itself is required and no desire can replace it. Bellarmine and Liguori are in error"?