Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

1) Baptism: Without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof.

WRONG.  But if you want to believe that go ahead.  I honestly don't care.

Let's get to the core of the problem, shall we?

Do you believe that BoD applies only to catechumens who have embraced the Catholic Faith and intend to be Baptized and are lacking nothing but the Sacrament itself for justification?

Wrong???? Why because you say so?

No, because I don't feel like explaining the reasons for this again.  I've done it about a dozen times on various threads.  Consequently, I decided to pass on the point and "concede" it for the sake of argument.

Quote

That is the core of the problem. You are rejecting and/or twisting a plain statement from a Roman Catholic Council. The teaching of Trent on baptism of desire is centered on anyone who desires the Roman Catholic faith (only). "The faith the catechumens beg for" (the Roman Catholic Faith). This is what is defined by Trent in regards to baptism of desire (and is de fide). I would have to believe that this would extend to anyone desiring the Roman Catholic Faith "only" (provided he has explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation) regardless of whether or not he was "officially" a catechumen. If a person dies without water baptism he must also have perfect contrition for sins to merit eternal life.

So if you restrict BoD to catechumens (or catechumen-like people) who have explicit belief, with the formal motive of faith, in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation at mininum and who have the resolve to be baptized (along with the other requisite dispositions), then I have no problem with you.  Go in peace.  I've repeatedly said that it's not worth my time to argue about this kind of BoD.

Of course, I've heard people SAY that before but then immediately begin to backtrack.

Do you consider Bishop Fellay's statement that the "Hindu in Tibet" could be saved to be erroneous and even possibly heretical?

I don't think I have said anything to the effect that a non-Catholic could be saved in his own "religion" throughout this whole thread (or on any thread). I am contending with those who believe water is an absolute necessity, regardless of whether he wishes to be Roman Catholic "only" or not; and those who deny that the Council of Trent made the teaching of baptism of desire de fide (for those who wish to be Roman Catholic "only"). As far as Bishop Fellay's statement being heretical, I would have to read it context. Anyone can be saved provided that before his soul departs for judgment, he believes explicitly in the Trinity and Incarnation and desires the Roman Catholic Faith (only) "the faith that the Catechumens beg for", and have perfect contrition for his sins.

Let's talk about selective quoting :smile:

One example from above:

Quote

• St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church (16th century): De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity”....."it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”

The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 3: "I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved."

The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 2: "Others, however, are of the soul but not of the body (of the Church), as Catechumens and those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible."

but yet the same St. Bellarmine says:

Quote

From this definition it can be easily gathered what men belong to the Church and what men do not. For there are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true Faith, the communion of the Sacraments, and the subjection to the legitimate Pastor, the Roman Pontiff.

 By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.

 By reason of the second, are excluded catechumens and excommunicates, because the former are not to be admitted to the communion of the sacraments, the latter have been cut off from it.

 By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.  

Which St. Bellarmine quote Ad Jesum per Mariam prefers today?

St. Robert Bellarmine does not contradict himself. He excludes Catechumens from formal Church membership, because they are not "in fact" in the Church. He does say, however that they are in the Church "in resolution" [voto], therefore they can be saved. Please read more carefully before you post. Also, you ignored all the other doctors, popes catechisms etc. throughout the centuries that clearly teach baptism of desire. So which quote does Ad Jesum Per Mariam prefer today? I believe I listed upwards of twenty in my recent post; the most of which you ignored. This seems to be one of them...

St. Robert Bellarmine-The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 3: "I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved[/i].

That's why I was asking your position on this.  If you believe as you say you do, then, again, I have zero problem with you and don't want to argue with you.  Just make note of the fact that some of the quotes you cite refer to Baptism of Blood and not of Desire, and that quite a few of the Church Fathers who support BoB at the same time explicitly reject BoD.

Other than a supposed quote from St. Augustine (whom also is quoted favoring baptism of desire), I haven't come across to many of these so called "quotes." Many quotes Feenyites use pertain to EENS, and not baptism of desire. The teaching of the Church is that those who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation and desire the Roman Catholic Faith do belong to the Church "in voto." Therefore they are not outside the Church. St Robert Bellarmine elaborates more on this.

It's interesting that most BoDers use the authority of St. Thomas as a bully stick but then reject St. Thomas' teaching that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are required for supernatural faith.

Unfortunately this happens. The true doctrine of Baptism of desire has been abused badly. Hence, the overreaction of "Feenyism."

But the Sacrament of Baptism IS an "absolute necessity".  Make sure that you recognize this distinction.  In the case of BoD, the Sacrament of Baptism would remain the instrumental cause of justification operating through the desire.  This preserves the dogmatic teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

The sacrament of Baptism can be received by water or desire (in certain cases). The sacrament is an absolute necessity. The way it is received is not.

As for who you're "contending with", you may reconsider who your ENEMIES are and who the enemies of the Faith are.  It is not those of us who hold, as a matter of personal opinion, that BoD is nothing more than an opinion rooted in speculative theology that had over time gained wide acceptance in the Church.  Your enemies and the enemies of the Faith are not the so-called "Feeneyites" but rather the Pelagians who claim that people can be saved WITHOUT the Sacraments and WITHOUT the Catholic faith by virtue of the implicit intention to "do what God wants" (heresy of Suprema Haec).  Your "contention" should be with the people that reject EENS and who reject Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments.  It should be with the people who believe in the invisible "subsistence" ecclesiology later enshrined by Vatican II.

You are fighting the WRONG battle.  If you consider us to be in error, our errors are, on a practical level, completely harmless.  Whereas the gnostic/Pelegians/Protestant ecclesiologists among Traditional Catholics are undermining the Faith.

Heresy is harmful to the Church regardless. It divides and weakens it. Opposing Church dogma endangers souls. So both battles are worth fighting.

Many quotes Feenyites use pertain to EENS, and not baptism of desire.

That's because most Cushingites use BoD to undermine EENS.  And because the strongest arguments AGAINST BoD come from the EENS definitions.


I find these very compelling.

(Major) No one can be saved without being subject to the Supreme Pontiff (EENS definition de fide).

(Minor) Only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism are subject to the Supreme Pontiff (de fide Council of Trent)

(Conclusion)  Only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism can be saved.



(Major) There is no salvation outside the Church of the faithful (de fidei EENS definition.

(Minor) Church has always used the term "faithful" to the specific exclusion of catechumens and only in reference to the baptized (cf. Msgr. Fenton)

(Conclusion) Only the baptized faithful can be saved.

A saint, doctor, or theologian is of course not infallible, as Pius XII beautifully states it:

"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even one single of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but by divine mandate, the interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures and depositary of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church ALONE is the entrance to salvation; she ALONE, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of Truth".  

If you want to prove that BOD is actually an INFALLIBLE teaching, please provide a source of the highest Magisterial authority (Councils, infallible pronouncements, decrees, canons) that explicitly teach the Baptism of Desire can be a substitute for water Baptism.

The Trent quote does not apply since it refers to Justification and not salvation and the obligation to receive the Sacrament still remains. Catechisms are also not infallible.

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Many quotes Feenyites use pertain to EENS, and not baptism of desire.

That's because most Cushingites use BoD to undermine EENS.  And because the strongest arguments AGAINST BoD come from the EENS definitions.


I find these very compelling.

(Major) No one can be saved without being subject to the Supreme Pontiff (EENS definition de fide).

(Minor) Only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism are subject to the Supreme Pontiff (de fide Council of Trent)

(Conclusion)  Only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism can be saved.



(Major) There is no salvation outside the Church of the faithful (de fidei EENS definition.

(Minor) Church has always used the term "faithful" to the specific exclusion of catechumens and only in reference to the baptized (cf. Msgr. Fenton)

(Conclusion) Only the baptized faithful can be saved.

 :jumping2:
Another syllogism:

Infallible Major Premise: "Baptism is necessary for salvation,"
Infallible Minor Premise: "True and natural water is necessary for Baptism"
Conclusion: "True and natural water is necessary for salvation"

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

Earth to Stubborn. Am I saying (the below) or is the Church???

The Church says...

All three sacraments necessary to salvation: Without them or without the desire thereof.

Baptism: Without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof.

Penance: Either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament.

Holy Communion: those to wit, who eating in desire.

Earth to AJpM,

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;

Here is the canon most often misinterpreted by NSAAers. As you can hopefully see better that the first part of the canon is bolded to demonstrate the affirmation that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation.

As it is, if they stopped the canon right there, it would read:    
CANON IV.-"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; let him be anathema."

This first part of the canon is what is NSAAers completely ignore as a rule. If NSAAers ever do discover it, they misinterpret it so as to jive with their idea of superfluous sacraments - as you do.

The reality is that the first part of the canon all by itself is enough to prove that there can be no such thing as salvation without the sacrament and that, as Trent states right there, the sacrament is a necessity and whoever makes the sacrament superfluous, which is precisely what a BOD does, is, per Trent, anathema.


But Trent did not stop there, they continued on to the second part of the canon to further affirm the necessity of the sacrament as they continued:


...and [if any one saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.



Now this second part of the canon decrees that without the sacraments there is no justification. That is what it says.

You cannot rightly say that "or without the desire thereof" means that one can be justified by desiring the sacrament, or in any way be justified without the sacrament, for the simple reason that the first part of the canon anathematizes anyone who says that. That is what it says.

Since the second part says that without the sacrament there is no justification, then we can be certain that without the sacrament, as we are told in the first part, there is no salvation.

The first part decrees there is no salvation without the sacrament, the second part decrees there is no justification without the sacrament. That is what it says even if all the NSAAers in the world reject what it says.

Nowhere does the canon decree the desire for the sacrament rewards salvation, even though the NSAAers wrongfully say otherwise.

Finally, if NSAAers would admit that nowhere is Trent teaching about desiring the sacraments and that throughout the sessions, that it is the sacraments themselves Trent is teaching us about, and that all the decrees, teachings and canons are to be read in light of that fact, they could never in any way, honestly say that the phrase "or the desire thereof" is defining salvation via "either or", or "either the sacraments or the desire for the sacraments" rewards salvation.

You keep going back to the same argument. And I repeat again that the Church does not contradict herself, when she says explicitly that the Sacraments necessary for salvation can be received by desire and even goes as far as to point them out individually! What you need to receive (the necessity) and how you receive it (in actuality or desire) are two completely different things. You are completely disregarding the three explicit statements of Trent regarding each Sacrament as well as the Canon which sums up Church teaching that all 3 sacraments necessary to salvation can be received by desire in favor of your own interpretation. The Church elaborates more in her Canon Law...

You are not reading Trent as it is written. You are adding your own misinterpretation then stating that misinterpretation to be dogma.

The Council is decreeing on the sacraments, not the desire for them. Once you understand and accept that fact, you will come to accept the teachings as they are written.

And you are correct, the Council is not contradicting itself because the council is not saying what you want it to say.

No adult in with the use of reason can honestly believe that Trent declares:

1) the sacraments are necessary and at the same time say:
2) the sacraments are not necessary
3) the sacraments are necessary or there would be nothing to desire since to desire them is in effect the same as receiving them
4) the sacraments are necessary in fact or in desire (Ambrosia's theology)  

#1 is what the canon states, #2,#3 and #4 are exceptions added by NSAAers but are non-existent anywhere in the council docuмents.



Let's look at your first error - I added the sentence in blue before and after your selective quote for context:

Baptism: And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, Without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

First and most obvious is your taking the decree out of context because you reject the sentence which immediately follows your selective quote. Note also that sentence which immediately precedes your selective quote tells us when the sacrament became a necessity: "since the promulgation of the Gospel", those who died prior to that died under the old law, those who died after that died under the new law and had to be sacramentally baptized in order to attain salvation.

If your selective quote were to be understood according to your interpretation, the next sentence I added in blue could not say what it says.

OTOH, if your selective quote were to be understood according to your interpretation, the next sentence I added in blue does not mean what it says.

OTOH again, if your selective quote were to be understood according to your interpretation, then Trent's catechism is wrong because regarding those words, Trent's catechism is quite clear:

Dispositions for baptism

Intention

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

Again, this is the Council of Trent, not the Second Vatican Council. We can have confidence that if the Fathers wanted to define a BOD or a BOB, they would have done so without any ambiguity whatsoever and there would be no debating about it.

By your reading of Trent, you make that Council to be like V2 -  as if like V2, they were ambiguous to the point that no one can understand what they meant - that in itself is error.

If they wanted to add exceptions, they would have done so without any help from theologian, saint or anyone.

As for your other errors:

Penance: Either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament.

Holy Communion: those to wit, who eating in desire.

First, neither sacrament can be had unless one has first received sacramental baptism. If for some reason the person chose to desire confession but was not baptized sacramentally, even if your above errors were not errors, that person would not have their sin forgiven. . . . . and they would commit even greater sin if that person went to confession but was not yet baptized no matter how sincere you thought they were.

And even if a person desired communion but they weren't baptized sacramentally, they would not gain any grace. . . . . .and they would commit even greater sin if that person received communion but was not yet baptized no matter how sincere you thought they were.

So here is you trying to convince us that the three most necessary sacraments are unnecessary as long as one desires them. You cannot accept that your theology effectively eliminates the actual sacraments - something the devil has sought to accomplish for +2000 years.


Here is what the Council of Trent has to say on the sacrament of penance:

Council of Trent declares: For those who fall into sin after Baptism the Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to salvation as is Baptism for those who have not been already baptised. (you may need to re-read that a few times if it doesn't sink in the first time)
The saying of St. Jerome that Penance is a second plank, is universally known and highly commended by all subsequent writers on sacred things. As he who suffers shipwreck has no hope of safety, unless, perchance, he seize on some plank from the wreck, so he that suffers the shipwreck of baptismal innocence, unless he cling to the saving plank of Penance, has doubtless lost all hope of salvation.


Trent's catechism continues:

The Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance

Returning now to the Sacrament, it is so much the special province of Penance to remit sins that it is impossible to obtain or even to hope for remission of sins by any other means;(you may need to re-read that a few times if it doesn't sink in the first time)
 for it is written: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. These words were said by our Lord in reference to grievous and mortal sins, although at the same time lighter sins, which are called venial, also require some sort of penance. St. Augustine observes that the kind of penance which is daily performed in the Church for venial sins, would be absolutely useless, if venial sin could be remitted without penance.

It goes on:

Necessity Of Confession

Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.

And there is much more on that sacrament in the catechism and it all teaches the same thing - the sacrament is necessary, but here, read it yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

You can read the link to learn what the catechism teaches about the necessity of communion as well, I doubt you read all this as it is, but for the sake of your own soul, stop looking for loop holes that are not there.