Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64365 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #340 on:** April 03, 2023, 10:57:19 PM »

I can't tell if the source for Denzinger number 411 is the same letter, "Ex parte tua", listed for number 409.

INNOCENT III 1198-1216

Denzinger 411

https://patristica.net/denzinger/#n400

The Dissolubility of Valid Marriage by Religious Profession *

[From the letter "Ex parte tua" to Andrew, the

Archbishop of Lyons, Jan. 12, 1206]

409 [. . .]

The Effect of Baptism (and the Character) *

410 [. . .]

411 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #341 on:** April 03, 2023, 11:08:53 PM »

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

trad123 · « **Reply #342 on:** April 03, 2023, 11:25:58 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 03, 2023, 10:20:35 PM

the term laver of refrigeration

Ugh, quite the typo.

**regeneration

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #343 on:** April 04, 2023, 01:07:32 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 03, 2023, 09:24:43 PM

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"?

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #344 on:** April 04, 2023, 02:08:42 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 03, 2023, 10:57:19 PM

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.

I tried to explain this regarding the other Canon in the sacraments in general.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg876799/#msg876799

The main difference of the that the Chapter IV of justification and the canon IV on sacraments is the use of the word "without", "anathema" and John 3:5.

I.E
Justification IV - 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.
Sacraments IV - without them (them=sacraments), or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;... - Anathema

Some have claimed that the lack of "without" in Justification IV is a translation error, but I would have to check this with someone who knows latin well.

However note that Canon IV on sacraments leaves no possibility for only either one or the other (sacrament only or desire only) because it is anathematizing the statement. As indicated in my other post, if the word 'and' was used then Trent would be anathematizing the use of both together for justification, and this makes no sense as that would mean you could ONLY have the sacrament by itself or the desire by itself but not both of them together. This is why 'OR' is used here.

So this creates a problem for the pro-BoD argument for Justification IV because Canon IV in 'on Sacraments in general' has stated that BOTH sacrament AND desire are needed for justification. And if you disagree that BOTH are needed then as Trent says "ANATHEMA".

The some theologians get around this by using the "in voto" trick, but I honestly think this is just cope and an error on their part.

Now before you say that Justification IV comes before Canon IV in Sacraments just remember that Trent is infallible and cannot contradict itself. So while justification seems open ended due to the lack of "without" or the lack of the "Anathema" it does however reaffirm John3:5. It does not make logical sense to adduce this scriptural passage if they had intended for BoD. BoD is nothing more than theological speculation that still keeps the "necessity" of the sacrament of baptism.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 64365 times)

trad123

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

Pax Vobis

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

trad123

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

AnthonyPadua

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