The claim of an analogy regarding sacramental necessity between baptism and penance is made by the Council of Trent, the Catechism, the Holy Office Letter of 1949, etc.

Lapide:

Ver. 43.—And Jesus said unto him. Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise. That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in the beatitude and beatific vision of God, i.e. To-day I will make thee for ever happy; I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with me this day. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Lect. c. 13); S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latrone); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Serm. on the Resurrection); S. Augustine (Tract. 111 on John). He explains paradise by heaven, that is celestial beatitude. It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven. For where Christ is, there is paradise; where, the vision and beatitude of God, there, heaven. For, as to what Euthymius and other Greeks say, denying that the souls of the saints see God before the judgment and are happy: by paradise they understand an earthly place; that to which Enoch was carried. But it cannot be so—for it is of the faith that Christ, shortly after His death went down in infernum—that is, the limbus of the Fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise. It is, moreover, uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining. But grant that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only. Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, Calvin, and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but there behold God, and are beatified by a vision of Him.

Marulus:

The bolded could be understood to mean, as you seem to understand it, that the thief went alone to heaven, but it could also be understood rightly, in context, to mean that neither Christ nor the thief went immediately to heaven. That is why the sentence continues to immediately explain how the thief experienced paradise in the Limbus Patrum.


Your reading comprehension is lacking, Lapide agrees with us and the Dimonds.

It's one thing to say you reject BoD, against the doctors, theologians, catechisms, etc. since at least Trent. But the arrogance, the snooze emoticons, the claims of heresy that certain anti-BoDers exhibit . . . I for one find it insufferable.

I don't want to be hard on you Marulus; we can respectfully disagree, and you of course can make whatever rational argument  you want. But the arrogance, sarcasm . . .




Maybe you should get a good alarm clock.

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.

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.

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":


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."

Yeah, well . . . are your posts here in the same vein of Cornelius a Lapide not saying that St. Dismas went to heaven before our Lord here:


It's one thing to say you reject BoD, against the doctors, theologians, catechisms, etc. since at least Trent. But the arrogance, the snooze emoticons, the claims of heresy that certain anti-BoDers exhibit . . . I for one find it insufferable.

I don't want to be hard on you Marulus; we can respectfully disagree, and you of course can make whatever rational argument  you want. But the arrogance, sarcasm . . .




Maybe you should get a good alarm clock.

Marulus,

This says it all about the mindset of the cult.I've screenshot this classic. Unbelievable. This is probably the most . . . wow.

Just wow.

I'm very sorry for you.

Try hypnotism maybe . . . but you have to want it.

Wow.

No it's not (except maybe in the spurious 1949 letter ... haven't looked at it much in years).  Trent explicitly teaches that the Sacrament of Confession, although similar to Baptism in that it results in a soul entering the state of justification, is very different from the Sacrament of Baptism.  Your allegation that the Catechism teaches BoD does not mean that there's an equivalence being made, as there's no reference whatsoever in the Catechism to Confession whatsoever in those passages.

“Baptism is administered but once, and cannot be repeated; penance may be administered and becomes necessary, as often as we may have sinned after baptism, according to the definition of the Fathers of Trent.  ‘For those who fall into sin after baptism,’ say they, ‘the sacrament of penance is as necessary to salvation, as is baptism for those who have not been already baptized’ (Session XIV, Chapter II).”

I apologize for my prior response. I'm sorry and shouldn't have responded that way.

No, I did not and do not deny that Christ opened heaven for us, and for the OT saints - I said as much in that thread - and even for St. Dismas, who wouldn't be there if not for Christ.

St. Dismas's spirit/soul entering heaven that day upon his demise, before Our Lord returned there in His resurrected body, in accordance with the will of God (and per Christ's promise) does not deny the truth of Christ's opening the door to heaven for all men.

To remain a Feeneyite anti-BoDer, you have to blur lines, reject distinctions, and interpret language and phrases with the intent on proving a point rather than attempting to understand what they mean, particularly in relation to other truths and facts which on the surface, and only on the basis of a superficial and quick reading (that looks to interpret things congenially with one's point of view), seem to indicate a contradiction - like the necessity of the sacrament of baptism and BoD.

If a sincere effort is made to understand, and with more reflection, the contradiction will often disappear.

There's a wonderful few verses near the end of the Gospel of John that says volumes about how we are to read closely and with the precision that the Word of God requires - rather than leaping to assumptions that may (and likely aren't) warranted.


I like the emphasis on the false reading and interpretation by the "brethren" of what Jesus said that is highlighted by the Confraternity translation of verse 23:


St. Dismas in spirit could go to heaven "this day," the day he died, and before Christ's physical ascension, and before the OT saints and the rest of us without making false the teaching that Jesus opening the gate of Heaven for all men.

Exceptions, especially those carved out by God, don't cancel out general rules and truths. The One who gives the rules and truths their general application to begin with can do that.