Who, me?  I've cited those same passages from Trent in this very thread to say the exact opposite of what you attribute to me above.

BTW, who is the "us"? Do you fancy yourself a monarch . . . or the pope?

Correct me if I'm mistaken but don't you believe that "Baptism of Desire" regenerates a man without remitting all sin so as to merit immediate entrance into heaven?

Don't you believe that initial justification can be incomplete?

Or do you believe one can be justified without regeneration?

Quote from: Ladislaus 3/15/2021, 8:07:58 PM


So here's Ladislausian soteriology in a nutshell.

The Sacrament of Baptism has two aspects to it:  1) the forgiveness and cleansing of sins and 2) entry into the Kingdom of God, the beatific vision as adopted sons of God into the family of the Holy Trinity.

#1 is effected by the graces of the Sacrament, but #2 is conferred in receiving the character of Baptism (the crown and the glory)

#1 deals with actual sin vs. actual virtue, the reward and punishment fitting each in justice, while #2 refers to unmerited grace that is owed to no one

#1 pertains to justification, and #2 to salvation.  But BOTH #2 and #1 must be had for salvation, as someone with the character is lost if dying in a state of grave sin.

#1 is the NATURAL aspect and #2 the SUPERnatural

Recall how Our Lord taught that St. John the Baptist was the greatest of all born of women (in the natural respect, #1) but was less than the LEAST member of the Kingdom (note that word again).  Ladislausianism also addresses the enigma of what Our Lord meant by that puzzling statement.  Those born of women refers to nature, whereas those born again of God refers to super-nature.  So as great as one could be naturally, that can't come close to the least bit of supernatural goodness.

So a martyred catechumen receives the Baptism of Blood, a perfect washing, and enters a state of justification and goes to Limbo, to enjoy perfect natural happiness for this act of perfect natural virtue.

But a martyred baptized person goes straight to heaven, since all their actual / natural sins are washed also.

Those who have the character but have some actual sin to cleanse go to Purgatory until they are cleansed so that they can enter the Kingdom.

Those who ardently desire Baptism and live virtuously will also have some (or even all) of their actual sin and punishment due to sin remitted as well (which seems to be what St. Ambrose is hoping for Valentinian).

So there IS in fact a baptism of desire and a baptism of blood, but these are only effective toward the cleansing or the washing part of Baptism, but not the glory or honor or crowning part ... which requires the character of Baptism and therefore the Sacrament.

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/msg737838/#msg737838

He's sidestepping as usual. You can find quotes all over here from him about justification without salvation or regeneration.

What a pathetic liar.  YOU equate salvation with regeneration and then mendaciously attribute that conflation to me, when in point of fact, it is PRECISELY the distinction between justification and salvation that is the basis for my position.  Trent equates (initial) JUSTIFICATION with regeneration, not salvation as you claim.  I have repeatedly cited Trent to the effect that initial justification requires regeneration.  What I do is to distinguish between justification and salvation.  You try to sneak your lie in there with the phrase "salvation or regeneration", as if Trent equated regeneration with salvation rather than justification.

Removal of punishment due to sin, by the way, is not necessarily justification.  Infants who die unbaptized are not in a state of justification.  But they also lack any punishment due to sin.  Where my theory comes in is that I posit that there can also be justified individuals in a Limbo state also, similar to the state the OT just were in.  We had the theologian Melchior Cano hold, for instance, that infidels can be justified by implicit faith, but not saved.  This distinction between justification and salvation was not invented by Father Feeney.  Really the only argument that BoDers have for asserting that all who die in a state of justification are necessarily saved (i.e. enter the Kingdom of Heaven) is an out-of-context distoration of a condemnation against Baius, but I have gone through and explained the bizarre theory of Baius that was being condemned, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the BoDers claim.

Clown.

Nice modification of your post, btw. I guess "pathetic liar" is better than "Old Catholic heretic." Likely my exchange with Brownson above - particuarly note my post #476 - in this thread caused the modification.

And it's a good thing you withdrew the heretic charge, in light of Trent and your, ah, pathetic lying (in your newly found spirit of forgoing heresy claims) Laudislausian theory that one could be justified and regenerated "in Christ" but not in a salvific state:

CHAPTER III.


Who are justified through Christ.

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] 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.