Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13

Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments  (Read 59578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2024, 03:07:26 PM »
Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 22, 2024, 09:34:00 AM
The Catechism of the Council of Trent also confirms that the Council taught that for those who fall into sin after baptism, the sacrament of penance is as necessary to salvation as baptism is for those who haven't been baptized.

That St. Bonaventure text you linked to is interesting.  There's also another post on that blog that's relevant to this topic:

https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2023/09/08/a-necessary-dilemma-rejecting-baptism-of-desire-requires-rejecting-perfect-contrition/

The earlier link regarding St. Bonaventure is indeed the writing of St. Bonaventure. However, this last link is by a Paul G. Matheson. The Centurion is a personal blog consisting of all of three items including the two above. It provides no information about the author. I've searched for any other mention of a Paul G. Matheson in a theological context, and there is none. What are this person's credentials, if any? 
Logged

Offline Joe Cupertino

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2024, 11:27:18 AM »
I linked to that blog post because of its relevance to this thread, not as a citation of Matheson as a theological authority.  The blog post corroborates DR's point, and backs it up with theological authorities.  I found it particularly interesting that the sacrament of penance is necessary by a necessity of means. I've seen and heard people say it was only a necessity of precept, and used to think the same. But now that I think about it, I've never seen a Catholic source of any authority say it was only necessary by a necessity of precept.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2024, 11:46:59 AM »
Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 25, 2024, 11:27:18 AM
I linked to that blog post because of its relevance to this thread, not as a citation of Matheson as a theological authority.  The blog post corroborates DR's point, and backs it up with theological authorities.  I found it particularly interesting that the sacrament of penance is necessary by a necessity of means. I've seen and heard people say it was only a necessity of precept, and used to think the same. But now that I think about it, I've never seen a Catholic source of any authority say it was only necessary by a necessity of precept.

It's necessary by necessity of means ... IF one has lost the state of justification after the Sacrament of Baptism.  Having lost one's baptismal innocence, it does not suffice merely to make an act of perfect contrition, but one must intend to go to the Sacrament of Confession.

While almost none of us is like St. Therese, who never committed a mortal sin, children who are baptized and die before the age of reason, or those who, say, are baptized on their deathbed and commit no additional mortal sin ... they do not require the Sacrament of Confession for justification or salvation.
Logged

Offline Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2024, 12:04:04 PM »
Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 25, 2024, 11:27:18 AM
I linked to that blog post because of its relevance to this thread, not as a citation of Matheson as a theological authority.  The blog post corroborates DR's point, and backs it up with theological authorities.  I found it particularly interesting that the sacrament of penance is necessary by a necessity of means. I've seen and heard people say it was only a necessity of precept, and used to think the same. But now that I think about it, I've never seen a Catholic source of any authority say it was only necessary by a necessity of precept.

If only that were what the article actually said. The title gives it away: "A Necessary Dilemma: Rejecting Baptism of Desire Requires Rejecting Perfect Contrition."

It goes far beyond the necessity of Baptism and Penance (i.e., the subject line). Is the premise of the title of that article an argument that is to be accepted in this thread? If so, then I'd ask that the case be made first that Perfect Contrition is fully equivalent to the Sacrament of Penance not simply in its efficacy per se for salvation (no argument there), but also in the necessary dispositions and the actual conditions under which Perfect Contrition can be safely relied upon. We were taught as children to be very cautious in such an assumption. We've been taught further that, when the unavoidable time comes for each of us, we are not to presume in vain that we will have the individual capacity for Perfect Contrition.

I'm not getting into theological discussions. I'm getting into the slippery slope that has put countless souls in danger during the past half century. How many families, how many people at the end of life, have dismissed the need for Extreme Unction?  How many have a foolish grasp of what Perfect Contrition really is?

Below, the article's conclusions:

Quote
Apparent Contradictions
It would, then, appear to be a heresy and direct contradiction of the Council of Trent to say a baptized person in mortal sin is able to be justified without actually receiving the sacrament of penance.  But if this is a real contradiction, then we find ourselves in a predicament.  For both the council and the council’s catechism explicitly teach that, despite the necessity of penance, perfect contrition may be substituted for it.
Quote
“The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.”
Quote
“The form of a sacrament signifies what the sacrament accomplishes: these words “I absolve thee” signify the accomplishment of absolution from sin through the instrumentality of this sacrament: they therefore constitute its form….This form is not less true, when pronounced by the priest over him, who by means of perfect contrition, has already obtained the pardon of his sins.  Perfect contrition, it is true, reconciles the sinner to God, but his justification is not to be ascribed to perfect contrition alone, independently of the desire which it includes of receiving the sacrament of penance.”
How could the Council of Trent have declared that the sacrament of penance is necessary for all baptized persons who fall into mortal sin, as necessary as baptism is for those not yet baptized, and that it is anathema to say such a person is able to be justified without the sacrament of penance, but then apparently contradict itself by teaching that such a person can be justified without having actually received the sacrament of penance? 

This apparent contradiction is resolved by understanding that when the Council of Trent teaches that a sacrament is necessary for salvation, without which a person can’t be justified, it means the sacrament is necessary, at least in desire, and that without receiving those sacraments “or without the desire of them” a person can’t be justified (Sess. 7, Can. 4).  There is, then, no real contradiction between the council’s teaching that a baptized person in mortal sin cannot be justified without the sacrament of penance, and its teaching that such a person can, indeed, be justified without actually having received the sacrament.  Likewise, as “the sacrament of penance is as necessary to salvation, as is baptism for those who have not been already baptized” (Sess. 14, Ch. 2), there is no real contradiction between the necessity of baptism and the doctrine of baptism of desire.

If we insist that the necessity of baptism entails that salvation cannot possibly be attained without actually receiving the sacrament, then we must hold the same with regard to the necessity of the sacrament of penance for those in mortal sin after baptism.  If it’s not possible for someone with the desire for baptism to be saved if they do not actually receive the sacrament before death, then it’s not possible for a baptized person in mortal sin to be saved without actually receiving the sacrament of penance before death, no matter how perfect their contrition may be.  If the doctrine of baptism of desire contradicts the necessity of baptism, then the doctrine of perfect contrition contradicts the necessity of penance.  If we reject the one, we must reject the other.

This latter part of the article is not an argument from the Doctors of the Church. This proposition appears to be no more than a layman's leap in a random personal blog. That's why I've asked what credentials this author has to be arguing such a premise. Are there any other traditional Catholic clergy or trained theologians who've claimed this very same thing?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2024, 12:15:50 PM »
That's a total lie/fabrication that perfect contrition is a "substitute" for the Sacrament of Confession, and is directly contradicted from the citation from Trent.  One must intend to go to Confession at the next opportunity.  There's no such thing as a "perfect contrition" that restores to a state of justification without the intention to go to Confession.  Now, Trent adds the phrase about opportunity because it's not necessary to rouse a priest at 3AM to confession immediately after said "perfect contrition", but, say, the next time there are confessions scheduled.  But Trent clearly teaches that there is no justification due to perfect contrition alone with the Sacrament of Confession being required, saltem voto, at least in intention.  Here's a simple case.  Someone makes a perfect act of contrition, with true sorrow for one's sins because they offend God and out of love for God, but then decides he doesn't want to go to Confession, for whatever reason ... too much trouble, embarrassment, etc.

And the claim of an analogy between that and the Sacrament of Baptism is completely false, as Trent explicitly states that there are significant differences between the Sacraments.  First and foremost, the Sacrament of Baptism imparts a character and makes someone a member of the Church, whereas the Sacrament of Confession applies only to those who already have the Baptismal character.

Who is this Matheson bozo ... who clearly demonstrates a lack of even the basic distinctions involved here?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13
« previous next »