Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 41323 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #390 on:** April 06, 2023, 06:10:24 AM »

Quote from: St Giles on April 05, 2023, 01:58:06 PM

What's going on in Acts 10:47 as pertains to this thread? The gentiles having received the Holy Ghost before being baptized with water.

It's very simple. As Trent taught, it's the activity of the Holy Ghost that disposes the soul to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. In addition, the Holy Ghost manifested Himself there by having the Gentiles speak in tongues. This was meant to teach St. Peter and the Apostoles that Baptism was not to be witheld from the uncircuмcised. Simply because the Holy Ghost manifested Himself among the Gentiles by their speaking in tongues to teach the Apostles about circuмcision not being a requirement for Baptism, this does not mean that they were at that time justified or would have bee saved had they died right then and there without having received Baptism. Recall that Our Lord taught that we must be born again of the Holy Ghost AND water in order to enter the Kingdom.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #391 on:** April 06, 2023, 06:17:33 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 05, 2023, 10:12:34 AM

I would just like to point out the errors in logic of Angelus' 2 sentences, in red, above. He's saying that Trent didn't say belief in the Trinity/Incarnation is necessary for justification. But the entire Chapter VI paragraph is full of words/phrases which reference these 2 doctrines. (See words in bold).

As far as I've seen on this thread, Angelus refused to answer the question about whether he holds that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for justification / salvation. Let's say we grant that Trent did not say whether this belief had to be explicit. In that case, by saying either yes or no, Angelus would not be "contradicting Trent", so he could have answered the question without fear of contradicting Trent. So this was a ruse to avoid having to answer the question.

So, what of it, Angelus, yes or no, is explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation necessary for salvation? If you refuse to answer again, I will proceed as if your answer is no ... since there's no other explanation for your refusal to answer.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #392 on:** April 06, 2023, 06:19:44 AM »

I used to think that the justification / salvation distinction originated with Father Feeney.

But a number of post-Tridentine theologians also made this distinction, most notably the Dominican theologian Melchior Cano.

Cano held that infidels could be justified through implicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, but they could not be saved through this implicit faith. So he too distinguished between justification and salvation.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #393 on:** April 06, 2023, 10:12:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2023, 06:19:44 AM

I used to think that the justification / salvation distinction originated with Father Feeney.

But a number of post-Tridentine theologians also made this distinction, most notably the Dominican theologian Melchior Cano.

Cano held that infidels could be justified through implicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, but they could not be saved through this implicit faith. So he too distinguished between justification and salvation.

That's been broadly "floated" around here, but there's never been anything close to any real evidence of that. The only name that has been thrown out there as taking this position is Cano, and I have challenged that:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/john-35-defined-as-dogma-at-trent-theologian-admits-(video)/msg843665/#msg843665

As I said before, I think the Council of Trent is quite clear: "if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified."

I'd be shocked if a "Post-Tridentine" theologian expressed thoughts on justification without taking into account that language and Trent's definitive treatment of the subject. That would be inexcusable.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #394 on:** April 06, 2023, 12:02:46 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 05, 2023, 12:13:23 PM

Well, marriage can be confected by votum. In fact, the votum is the essential component there.

Agreed, but it might be added that marriage is confected when there is a vota, a verbal exchange of both vows. The interesting thing with marriage, if the would-be-husband died right after the words, "I take thee...," would there have been a marriage? Because although not verbally expressed, the would-be-wife had the "intention" to express the words.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #395 on:** April 06, 2023, 12:17:50 PM »

Quote

The point is, as others have pointed out, it makes no sense to believe that God won't or is not capable of getting someone baptized if He wills it regardless of "impossibility".

Good point. I hate it when people argue that "God isn't limited by the Sacraments because He's omnipotent." This is Modernist thinking because it erodes the idea of God's Divine Providence and Wisdom.

God created the Church/sacraments/free-will of mankind. He created the "rules". He invented the board game** of life/salvation. But then we stupid humans play the board game and say "Well, God is losing (because John Doe wanted baptism but didn't get it), so He can invent new rules to save John." This is ridiculous because God knew, before John was even born, what the game board would look like when he was alive, and the odds stacked against him. God can't lose at His own game. And changing the rules, while the game is being played, would mean God is NOT omnipotent, and His Providence can fail, and His Wisdom is limited. This is heresy.

** (a 1,000 pardons for this horrible analogy of a board game)...

God also created the rules of the 10 Commandments. Can He save someone who dies in mortal sin? Why not? Why can't God also change these rules?

God also wrote the Bible. Can He lie to us and tell us things which aren't historically/scientifically accurate? Why not? Why can't God change history or science?

See the slippery slope this all leads to? Once you start questioning 1 aspect of Our Faith, then everything is open to questions. And then you're a Modernist.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #396 on:** April 06, 2023, 01:00:24 PM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on April 06, 2023, 12:02:46 PM

Agreed, but it might be added that marriage is confected when there is a vota, a verbal exchange of both vows. The interesting thing with marriage, if the would-be-husband died right after the words, "I take thee...," would there have been a marriage? Because although not verbally expressed, the would-be-wife had the "intention" to express the words.

This is a good point. Both could have been absolutely intent upon getting married an hour before the ceremony. Would they have been married then? No. That's why votum, from which we get our word "vow", even in the BoD context, is MUCH stronger than a mere intention. You almost can't have the votum until you actually carry it out.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #397 on:** April 06, 2023, 02:59:42 PM »

We have an instance of BoD in the Eunuch of Candace (Acts 8). He had "come to Jerusalem to adore."(27) We know that this man at least knew of the religion of the Jews and sought to adore the God of the Old Testament. We do not know his motives, but presume his sincerity, since God saw fit to send an angel to Philip, commanding him to go to "the desert," "the way that goeth from Jerusalem into Gaza." The Holy Ghost had obviously stirred up the soul of the eunuch. The Eunuch had been to Jerusalem, but had not heard about Christ there, and leaving the city he had a "desire" to follow the truth. The Eunuch was reading the truth, but did not understand the truth, hence his admission, "how can I (understand the truth), unless some man show me?"(31) And the Eunuch, after he had been preached to, admitted his belief in Christ, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."(37) Because the eunuch desired to know the truth, God confirmed the full truth (Baptism) in him.

Angelus · « **Reply #398 on:** April 06, 2023, 03:20:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2023, 06:17:33 AM

So, what of it, Angelus, yes or no, is explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation necessary for salvation? If you refuse to answer again, I will proceed as if your answer is no ... since there's no other explanation for your refusal to answer.

Of course, explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for SALVATION.

Previously you asked me a different question, Ladislaus. Here it is verbatim:

"So, let me ask you this. Is the requirement of explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation and Our Lord Jesus Christ necessary for justification?" (found in this post)

So you asked two different questions, but claim you are asking me AGAIN. One question used the word "justification" and the other question used the word "salvation." These words do not mean the same thing, although many on this forum use them interchangeably.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #399 on:** April 06, 2023, 03:33:46 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on April 06, 2023, 03:20:33 PM

Of course, explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for SALVATION.

This was asked before you decided that you liked the justification vs. salvation distinction.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #400 on:** April 06, 2023, 03:36:05 PM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on April 06, 2023, 02:59:42 PM

We have an instance of BoD in the Eunuch of Candace (Acts 8).

Do we? In point of fact we have no idea. All we know is that the Holy Ghost was involved in inspiring her with the proper dispositions needed for Baptism, which happens whether there's a BoD or not. We can't read stuff into passages every time we see mention of the Holy Ghost.

Angelus · « **Reply #401 on:** April 06, 2023, 03:40:13 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2023, 03:33:46 PM

This was asked before you decided that you liked the justification vs. salvation distinction.

Wrong again. You asked your question pages after this post of mine:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877424/#msg877424

In that post I made the distinction between "justification" and "salvation." Here's how I ended that post:

"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."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #402 on:** April 06, 2023, 06:27:12 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on April 06, 2023, 03:40:13 PM

Wrong again. You asked your question pages after this post of mine:

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877424/#msg877424

In that post I made the distinction between "justification" and "salvation." Here's how I ended that post:

"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."

No, that's in line with your idiotic mis-definition of salvation and has nothing to do with reality. You keep blabbering like some moron about how the distinction between justification and salvation has to do with whether temporal punishment has been remitted. Nobody accepted this idiocy.

In fact, it's heretical. You clearly haven't been paying attention.

Trent: there can be no initial JUSTIFICATION without rebirth
Trent: rebirth means that no temporal punishment for sin remains.

QED: there can be no temporal punishment remaining after initial justification.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #403 on:** April 06, 2023, 06:31:07 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on April 06, 2023, 06:27:12 PM

Trent: there can be no initial JUSTIFICATION without rebirth
Trent: rebirth means that no temporal punishment for sin remains.

QED: there can be no temporal punishment remaining after initial justification.

Explain what part of this doesn't register to your challenged brain.

Geremia · « **Reply #404 on:** April 06, 2023, 07:12:31 PM »

Even if it doesn't, the Council of Trent very clearly does:

Sessio Sexta,

Sixth Session,
celebrata die XIII. Januarii 1547.	held January 13, 1547.
DECRETUM DE JUSTIFICATIONE.	DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION.

[…]

Caput IV.	Chapter IV.
Insinuatur descriptio justifactionis impii, et modus ejus in statu gratiæ.	A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the manner thereof in the state of grace.
Quibus verbis justifications impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adæ, in statum gratiæ, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum: quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest; sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.	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, [Rom. 8:15,16,23] through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not 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 can not enter into the Kingdom of God. [Jn. 3:5]

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 41323 times)

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

DecemRationis

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

OABrownson1876

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

Ladislaus

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

OABrownson1876

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

Angelus

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

Angelus

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

Geremia

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