Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: The Catechumen  (Read 2078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15182
  • Reputation: +8019/-2499
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Catechumen
« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2017, 09:11:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BOD was taught at Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4, and so infallible in that regard as "agree[ing] with past dogmatic statement[]." So much for the Catechism not being infallible on that point.

    That's the thing, though; there's no evidence that the passage in the Catechism was attempting to interpret Trent or whether it was just a general treatment on the subject.  So you can't even read that as some official interpretation of Trent.  If the passage in the Catechism does refer to BoD, however -- and there's room for doubt IMO as I've seen the Latin -- then it's obvious that the authors of the Catechism did not see BoD as incompatible with the teaching of Trent.  But that's really as far as we can take it.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15182
    • Reputation: +8019/-2499
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #46 on: November 24, 2017, 10:23:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • While I agree that there isn't heresy in the Roman Catechism, it's also clearly not infallible.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15182
    • Reputation: +8019/-2499
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #47 on: November 24, 2017, 10:33:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It didn't cite Trent so you can say there is no direct evidence. That's fine.

    St. Robert cited Trent Session VI, Chapter 4 as supporting BOD. Of course, he could be wrong. He is, however, support for that view. I tend to agree with him - that's all.

    There is room for discussion among Catholics in good faith, and you are an example of that, as I hope I may be.

    Even if you think that Trent VI.4 is referring to BoD, the statement there falls about as far short of a definition as you can get.  Trent never teaches that Desire ALONE can suffice for justification ... just that it cannot happen without it.  Trent teaches that Desire is a necessary cause but falls short of declaring it a sufficient cause ... due to the "cannot happen without" language.  Trent does not positively teach that justification (and then salvation) CAN happen WITH DESIRE ALONE ... as Trent does for Confession.  Not to mention, Trent makes NO mention of how it works and the conditions necessary for it to work.  Consequently, I've probably heard half a dozen different explanation of the requirements for BoD.  That's prima facie evidence that the Church has never defined it.  Really the greatest common denominator among BoDers is this notion that Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

    I read Trent as teaching that BOTH BAPTISM AND THE DESIRE are necessary for justification.  Why?  Because of the passage immediately after it, the citation from Scripture which says that one cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.  Trent was making an analogy between laver:Sacrament::desire:Holy Ghost (if you know analogy punctuation -- if not I'll explain it).  So Trent is supposed to be saying, "One cannot be justified without either Baptism or else the desire for it because Jesus taught that water (Baptism) AND the Holy Spirit (desire) are necessary for being born again?  That doesn't make sense to me.  I used to believe in BoD for Catechumens ... because I thought it was in Trent ... but then I sat down and read the entire Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it jumped out at me that Trent was teaching no such thing.

    Language is similar to this:  "You can't play baseball without a bat or a ball."  This is ambiguous on its own.  It could mean that you can play if you have one or the other (BoDer interpretation of Trent) or else that you can't play with either one missing (my reading of it).  But when Trent follows this up with citing as Scriptural proof "water AND the Holy Ghost" ... that immediately disambiguates it in favor of how I read it.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15182
    • Reputation: +8019/-2499
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #48 on: November 24, 2017, 11:19:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Obviously this "necessity" can be met by desire for the sacrament, since Trent affirmatively states that with regard to Penance.

    Right, and that's why I argued with the Dimondites on the other thread that BoD is not a heresy which denies the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

    I'll write more later as I have some errands to run.

    From the language itself, there are in fact two possible readings.

    WITHOUT (SACRAMENT OR DESIRE)

    WITHOUT SACRAMENT OR THE DESIRE (i.e. cannot without Sacrament and cannot without desire)

    Even IF you read it the first way, as the proponents of BoD do, it's STILL a statement of necessary cause and not sufficient cause.  AT BEST the sufficiency of DESIRE could be read as IMPLIED by the text.

    I go with the second reading because of the context and the Scriptural quote that follows.  I'll write more on that later.

    Let's get back to the baseball analogy:

    WITHOUT (BAT OR BALL)

    WITHOUT BAT OR WITHOUT BALL (i.e. cannot without bat and cannot without ball)

    ... just look at the Scriptural passage following "as it is written".  Trent is using "water AND the Holy Spirit" as proof text for "water OR the Holy Spirit"?  That's preposterous to me.



     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16