Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 41268 times)

trad123 · « **Reply #345 on:** April 04, 2023, 05:12:00 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on April 04, 2023, 01:07:32 AM

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

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.

In other words:

. . . this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the Sacrament of Baptism actually conferred 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).

The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: in English Translation, published by Ignatius Press,

Third Book On Things, CANONS 726–1551, FIRST PART—On Sacraments, Title 1:

Quote

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.

The above is the 1917 Code of Cannon Law.

Now, here's the 1983 Code of Cannon Law:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docuмents/cic_lib4-cann834-878_en.html#TITLE_I.

Quote

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.

For example, that is why Tanquerey states the following:

Manual Of Dogmatic Theology, 1959, by Tanquerey

Page 225:

https://archive.org/details/manualofdogmatic0002adta/page/224/mode/2up

Quote

After the promulgation of the Gospel, Baptism of water is necessary by a necessity of means in re or in desire.

"in re" meaning the Sacrament of Baptism actually conferred.

Stubborn · « **Reply #346 on:** April 04, 2023, 05:57:13 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 04, 2023, 05:12:00 AM

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.

If Trent did not have the words; "or the desire thereof," clearly the doctrine would be that justification "cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration." Period.

BODers believe that Trent immediately contradicts themselves with the words "or the desire thereof," then immediately contradicts themselves again by reaffirming the necessity of the sacrament in concluding with John 3:5.

Justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, which is to say no sacrament=no justification. There is no getting around this because that's what Trent says. As such, Trent must be seen as confirming justification cannot be effected with a BOD by the words "or the desire thereof."

To understand it any other way is to have a doctrine riddled with self contradictions.

trad123 · « **Reply #347 on:** April 04, 2023, 06:07:48 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 04, 2023, 05:57:13 AM

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.

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.

Innocent III states otherwise in the letter I posted here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877636/#msg877636

Now, that letter isn't necessarily infallible, but it's a source that I was able to find. I've already tried searching through the Church Fathers and the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the material on the Papal Encyclicals website.

trad123 · « **Reply #348 on:** April 04, 2023, 06:44:54 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on April 04, 2023, 02:08:42 AM

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 point is that I'm starting to agree with Plenus Venter, that the laver of regeneration is the Sacrament of Baptism, with all the necessary conditions implied.

trad123 · « **Reply #349 on:** April 04, 2023, 06:55:23 AM »

In other words, the laver of regeneration and the Sacrament of Baptism is one and the same thing.

A person attempting to administer a forced baptism will not actual confer the laver of regeneration, because the cooperation of the will of the recipient is a necessary condition to actually confer the sacrament.

A forced baptism does not have all the necessary conditions to constitute the Sacrament of Baptism.

When I posted the link to the thread earlier, about Father Kramer, the poster JoeZ had written the following:

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

Quote

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.

The fundamental issue is the understanding of the term "laver of regeneration"

The water and the words spoken, by the person administering, but left apart from the desire of the recipient does not constitute the term "laver of regeneration"

trad123 · « **Reply #350 on:** April 04, 2023, 06:57:26 AM »

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.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #351 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:02:14 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on April 03, 2023, 07:30:17 PM

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.

trad123 · « **Reply #352 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:02:46 AM »

Also adults who are incapable of such consent, the mentally retarded.

trad123 · « **Reply #353 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:06:11 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on April 04, 2023, 07:02:14 AM

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.

It's very likely such explicit faith is the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

I also think such a denial makes a mockery of the Athanasian Creed

DecemRationis · « **Reply #354 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:06:57 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 04, 2023, 06:57:26 AM

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.

Yes, I brought this up pages ago, in posts ##184 and 188.

Quote

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.

Quote

Quote
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 . . .

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.

trad123 · « **Reply #355 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:23:06 AM »

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #356 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:23:20 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 04, 2023, 06:07:48 AM

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.

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.

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.

Trent's Catechism.......

The faithful are also 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 live a 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 upon none. Hence
we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual
without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have,
since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

Insane, delirious persons who were once of sound mind and afterwards became deranged, having in their
present state no wish to be baptised, are not to be admitted to Baptism, unless in danger of death. In such cases,
if previous to insanity they give intimation of a wish to be baptised, the Sacrament is to be administered;
without such indication previously given it is not to be administered. The same rule is to be followed with
regard to persons who are unconscious.

But if they (the insane) never enjoyed the use of reason, the authority and practice of the Church decide that
they are to be baptised in the faith of the Church, just as children are baptised before they come to the use of
reason.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #357 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:24:05 AM »

Quote from: Angelus on April 03, 2023, 08:36:51 PM

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?

Some try to take St. Peter Canisuis's catechism too far in simply not mentioning BOD. Also, it was issued before the Catechism of the Council of Trent, with its additional explication and clarity of what Trent meant.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #358 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:31:16 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 04, 2023, 07:23:20 AM

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?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #359 on:** April 04, 2023, 07:34:12 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 04, 2023, 07:23:06 AM

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.

Yes, that appears right.

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 41268 times)

trad123

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

trad123

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

trad123

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

DecemRationis

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

trad123

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

trad123

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

DecemRationis

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