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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13

Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments  (Read 59643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2024, 03:09:38 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2024, 02:08:37 PM
Hi, Marulus .... can't read your white font :laugh1:.  Perhaps people with better eyesight, but not I

[ FIFY, copy/paste then use the font color function, which is found above the swinging thurible emoji.]



Quote
TRENT ON NECESSITY OF PENANCE VS. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

Now some people point to Trent’s statement in Sess. 14, Chap. 2, where it says that the Sacrament of Penance is necessary for those who have fallen as baptism itself is for those not yet regenerated. 
Quote
Quote
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance: “This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”

They argue that since the grace of Penance can be attained by the desire for it plus perfect contrition in the absence of the Sacrament, that applies to baptism as well.  But that argument fails because in the very same decree Trent adds that people can be justified before the Sacrament of Penance is actually received by perfect contrition and the desire for the Sacrament of Penance, but Trent nowhere says the same about baptism.
Quote
Quote
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

The argument also fails because one cannot have perfect contrition until one is regenerated or born of God in baptism (1 John 4:7).
In fact, Trent teaches three different times (Sess. 6, Chap. 14; Sess. 14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can suffice for justification, but nowhere did it teach the same about baptism, although it could have if baptism of desire were a true doctrine.  So, taken in context Trent does not equate the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance.


Logged

Offline Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2024, 03:17:10 PM »
Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 25, 2024, 01:31:20 PM
Any takers? I predict not, because the fact that professions of faith that speak of salvation and not justification only do not include "...or the desire for them" completely destroys this false argument.

I also predict no one will even attempt to explain how can all justice begin at the sacraments when all admit Baptism of Man's Own Will is not a sacrament.

One more prediction, the debate on this topic will always focus on the BoDer nonsense arguments and the clear-cut unassailable proofs such as Pope St.Leo the Great's dogmatic tome to Flavian will continue to be ignored.


Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18).  Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith.  Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?  It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.  And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.  For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.  And the three are one.  (1 Jn. 5:4-8)  IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.  THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.  NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/pope-leo-the-great-water-baptism/


Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

No need to explain anything, just receive and accept the teaching of the Magisterium.

[Font of the quoted section fixed from white to black.]
Logged

Offline Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #42 on: February 25, 2024, 07:41:16 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus 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.

There's the Saint Jean Vianney anecdote of the grieving widow of the man who jumped off a bridge to his death. The good Curé d'Ars told her that the husband had managed a perfect contrition in the split second before drowning. His very last sin by definition gave no opportunity for Confession.

Yet that case seems to speak more to the virtue of hope (as a unique and sudden example of final perseverance) than to perfect contrition as a generalizable fallback for any except the most unusual situations. (Or imagine a seemingly comatose apostate unable to communicate his final wishes but lucid enough interiorly to desire repentance sincerely for all the right reasons other than fear of damnation.)

Possible perhaps with God's mercy, but to lasso outliers and attempt to construct an entire teaching around these without the necessary qualifiers? Saint Jean Vianney had the rare grace of being able to read souls. The rest of us don't.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2024, 06:14:57 AM »
Quote from: Soubirous on February 25, 2024, 07:41:16 PM
There's the Saint Jean Vianney anecdote of the grieving widow of the man who jumped off a bridge to his death. The good Curé d'Ars told her that the husband had managed a perfect contrition in the split second before drowning. His very last sin by definition gave no opportunity for Confession.

Yet that case seems to speak more to the virtue of hope (as a unique and sudden example of final perseverance) than to perfect contrition as a generalizable fallback for any except the most unusual situations. (Or imagine a seemingly comatose apostate unable to communicate his final wishes but lucid enough interiorly to desire repentance sincerely for all the right reasons other than fear of damnation.)

Possible perhaps with God's mercy, but to lasso outliers and attempt to construct an entire teaching around these without the necessary qualifiers? Saint Jean Vianney had the rare grace of being able to read souls. The rest of us don't.

What are you talking about?  Neither I nor Trent said anything about having the actual opportunity to go to Confession, but intend to go to Confession at the next available opportunity (if one were to present itself).  It means that in addition to his act of perfect contrition on his way down, he could just as easily have also thought that he wished he could have a priest to confess to.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2024, 06:56:07 AM »
Quote from: Soubirous on February 25, 2024, 12:04:04 PM
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?



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?

You're tilting at a windmill you've thought up into a dragon. Wrong fight, wrong battle.

The article is simply making the logical and sound argument that if you reject the possibility of a BoD you are rejecting the possibility of a cleansing by grace sufficient for heaven by a desire for penance before it is received. The analogy between baptism and penance in terms of necessity is laid out in the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, the Holy Office Letter - for examples. 

The article is directed at the theological position that rejects the possibility of a BoD when the sacrament cannot be recieved by one with the intention, contrition and faith to receive it. No other position beyond that is advanced.

Again, the article apparently is triggering demons of liberalism in your mind, and you unjustifiably attack it. 

Quote
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?

The "layman" is a man; men are rational and capable of logical thought; the "layman" advances a logical and sound argument. If you have an issue with its logic, as another man presumably capable of rational and hence logical thought, demolish its logic, likewise making reference to the sources he mentions on the comparable necessity of the sacraments of baptism and penance, etc. Judge the merits of the argument. I suspect you can't, that's why you bring up, "credentials." 

Here, go ahead, pick the poor brother "layman" all twisted up on the pavement and crippled from his "leap":


Quote
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.

In addition to a simply smiley emoticon option, we need a "whistling in the dark" one, too. 

This is the second time you've done this in this thread, Soubirous, taking shots redolent of theology while "not commeting" on the theology or "not getting into theological discussions."

:facepalm:

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13
« previous next »