Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ad Jesum per Mariam on July 29, 2014, 07:50:45 PM
-
The Council of Trent says that there are Sacraments (plural) necessary for salvation. Which Sacraments do you believe the Council were referring to?
-
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
-
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
-
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
Baptism, Holy Communion, and (for those who had fallen after Baptism) Confession.
-
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
Baptism, Holy Communion, and (for those who had fallen after Baptism) Confession.
Thank you for answering the question Ladislaus.
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
-
Three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of orders is necessary to the Church.
-
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
Baptism, Holy Communion, and (for those who had fallen after Baptism) Confession.
Thank you for answering the question Ladislaus.
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
I could have said that better. I should have said, "suffices to obtain the Grace of Justification provided through no fault of one's own they cannot be received."
-
Three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of orders is necessary to the Church.
The Canon clearly says that the Sacraments that they are referring to, must be received either in actuality or desire. It clearly references them as a group. Not individually. The Council of Trent even highlights the fact that Baptism is one of the Sacraments they were referring to which can be received by "the desire thereof". (see session 6 below). They also highlight Penance (Chapter XIV). You have written your own canon (above) in opposition to Trent.
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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.
BAPTISM:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-Chapter IV
PENANCE:
As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to [Page 42] God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance. The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-CHAPTER XIV.
-
BAPTISM:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-Chapter IV
This refers to Justification. Modernist BODers teach "salvation by implicit desire" or "salvation by justification alone" which are novel doctrines and are both wrong. If desire suffices to obtain justification, the necessity to receive the Sacrament still remains to obtain salvation.
Trent continues...
Session 7, Canons 2 & 5 of the Canons on Baptism from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:
Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
The reception of the Sacraments is required for Salvation. If justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments, he cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.
-
Three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of orders is necessary to the Church.
This post highlights the group of three Sacraments (Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion). All can be received in desire (Highlighted in red). None is singled out to be different. This is why the canon refers to them as a group.
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
BAPTISM:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-Chapter IV
PENANCE:
As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to [Page 42] God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance. The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-CHAPTER XIV.
HOLY COMMUNION:
Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. The Council of Trent-The Thirteenth Session-CHAPTER VIII.
-
If justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments, he cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.
Notice the highlighted part. The Catholic Faith is the foundation of all Justification. This runs quite opposite to what the BOD-ers believe and promote. A Jew, Hindu, Moslem, etc cannot be possibly justified since he does not hold the Catholic Faith so under any circuмstance the Baptism of Desire could apply to them, unless they were catechumens.
-
BAPTISM:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-Chapter IV
This refers to Justification. Modernist BODers teach "salvation by implicit desire" or "salvation by justification alone" which are novel doctrines and are both wrong. If desire suffices to obtain justification, the necessity to receive the Sacrament still remains to obtain salvation.
Trent continues...
Session 7, Canons 2 & 5 of the Canons on Baptism from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments:
Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.
The reception of the Sacraments is required for Salvation. If justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments, he cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.
As for Canon 5, no one said baptism is optional! Now if it said "water" baptism you would have a point. But the Council cannot contradict itself, therefore it didn't qualify the word Baptism with "water" in that canon. Baptism is not optional; it must be received in actuality or desire.
As for Canon 2. A metaphor is a word or phrase used to describe or represent something else that is tangible (a person, place, thing or action). For example referring to God as "A Mighty Fortress" would be to use a metaphor. Or he's "fishing" for something (fishing meaning looking). I do not believe that water is being used to describe something else or an action, and neither does the Church. Water means water and not anything else. It must be received in actuality or desire. Therefore Canon 2 does not apply to your argument.
As for your other argument, I believe you are implying that the Grace of Justification does not merit salvation. This is proven false, not only from the context of Canon IV-Session 7, but from another Canon in the Council which says clearly that those who merit the Grace of Justification, merit Eternal Life...
If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema. The Council of Trent-Session VI-CANON XXXII
-
If justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments, he cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.
Notice the highlighted part. The Catholic Faith is the foundation of all Justification. This runs quite opposite to what the BOD-ers believe and promote. A Jew, Hindu, Moslem, etc cannot be possibly justified since he does not hold the Catholic Faith so under any circuмstance the Baptism of Desire could apply to them, unless they were catechumens.
I am referring mainly to those who renounce their former religion, explicitly desire water baptism in the Roman Catholic Church (with perfect contrition for sins) and who through no fault of their own do not receive water baptism before death, as being "de fide" Baptism of Desire. This is usually rejected by Feenyites, and is a direct contradiction of the Council of Trent.
-
After reading your posts in this thread, you obviously misnamed the title of this thread.
You should have named it:
"Which Desires are Necessary Unto Salvation?
:facepalm:
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
Baptism, Holy Communion, and (for those who had fallen after Baptism) Confession.
Thank you for answering the question Ladislaus.
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
Does the desire for Holy Communion merit one who has not yet desired Baptism? Penance?
Again: :facepalm:
-
If justification can be attained by a person with the Catholic Faith together with at least a desire for the Sacraments, he cannot attain Salvation unless he receives the Sacraments.
Notice the highlighted part. The Catholic Faith is the foundation of all Justification. This runs quite opposite to what the BOD-ers believe and promote. A Jew, Hindu, Moslem, etc cannot be possibly justified since he does not hold the Catholic Faith so under any circuмstance the Baptism of Desire could apply to them, unless they were catechumens.
I am referring mainly to those who renounce their former religion, explicitly desire water baptism in the Roman Catholic Church (with perfect contrition for sins) and who through no fault of their own do not receive water baptism before death, as being "de fide" Baptism of Desire. This is usually rejected by Feenyites, and is a direct contradiction of the Council of Trent.
Ad Jesum per Mariam, can you please explain in your own words the reason why you and all other NSAAers cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
-
After reading your posts in this thread, you obviously misnamed the title of this thread.
You should have named it:
"Which Desires are Necessary Unto Salvation?
:facepalm:
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
Baptism, Holy Communion, and (for those who had fallen after Baptism) Confession.
Thank you for answering the question Ladislaus.
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
Does the desire for Holy Communion merit one who has not yet desired Baptism? Penance?
Again: :facepalm:
What does that have to do with anything??? The point is that it is possible to receive all three of the Sacraments "necessary to salvation" in desire with the correct circuмstances applying in each case.
-
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
No, I do no agree; that's the very crux of my position. Yes, Penance can achieve justification when perfect contrition is combined with a desire for Penance. Holy Communion is necessary by necessity of precept and by way of moral necessity, so desire for it doesn't figure in. Baptism is a character Sacrament and consequently cannot be had by desire any more than Holy Orders can be had be desire; its effect depends upon the character imprinted upon the soul.
-
Trent lumps the Sacraments together but then explicitly states that not all the Sacraments are necessary for all, e.g. some of them (such as Penance) are conditionally necessary, i.e. making it clear that what applies to one Sacrament does not necessarily apply to the others. Trent goes out of its way to emphasize how different Penance is from Baptism. Baptism, by way of the character, is the gateway to all the other Sacraments. Quite a few Church Fathers taught that the "seal" (character) was an essential part of the grace of Baptism, and I hold to that also. It's the seal which conforms the soul to the likeness of Christ and makes us recognized by the Father as His sons. Without being conformed into sons of the Father through this character, we can never enter into the life of the Holy Trinity and therefore see God as He is (from within the Holy Trinity) in the beatific vision.
Trent dogmatically teaches that those without the character of Baptism are not subject to the Holy Father, and the Church teaches dogmatically that those not subject to the Holy Father cannot be saved.
-
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
No, I do no agree; that's the very crux of my position. Yes, Penance can achieve justification when perfect contrition is combined with a desire for Penance. Holy Communion is necessary by necessity of precept and by way of moral necessity, so desire for it doesn't figure in. Baptism is a character Sacrament and consequently cannot be had by desire any more than Holy Orders can be had be desire; its effect depends upon the character imprinted upon the soul.
Who cares if you agree or not. The Catholic Church teaches it whether you like it or not. For you it is all about whether you agree or not. You hold your intellect above all others. If anyone disagrees with you including the Church they are wrong and you are right. You continually make it worse on yourself by repeatedly disseminating your errors.
-
Who cares if you agree or not. The Catholic Church teaches it whether you like it or not. For you it is all about whether you agree or not.
Again, Logic 101 please. I don't agree that what you claim is Church teaching is actually teaching. I obviously am not saying that I do not agree with Church teaching.
-
You continually make it worse on yourself by repeatedly disseminating your errors.
MY errors? You are trying to disseminate Pelagianism.
-
As for Canon 5, no one said baptism is optional! Now if it said "water" baptism you would have a point. But the Council cannot contradict itself, therefore it didn't qualify the word Baptism with "water" in that canon. Baptism is not optional; it must be received in actuality or desire.
Yet, the BODers here say that Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament. What is it, then?
If BOD is not the sacrament, then there is a clear denial of the following dogmatic statement:
Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional , that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.
-
It is precisely because of the complexity of and the wealth of meaning contained in this fundamental notion of the Catholic Church that the theologians have had to set forth many types of definitions of the Church. There are three main types of definitions which scholastic theology recognizes as applicable to the Church Militant. The first of these, the widest or most general kind of definition of the Church, applies to the entire company of those joined to God in Jesus Christ. It takes in the Church Triumphant in Heaven, the Church Suffering in Purgatory, and the Church Militant here on earth. The second variety of definition is restricted to the Church Militant, but it considers this company, not only according to its form and structure under the economy of the New Testament, but according to its conditions under the Old Dispensation also. The third type of definition explains only the Church Militant of the New Testament. Within this type there are several subdivisions, all of which contribute powerfully to the explanation of the basic notion of the Church, as this is brought out in the various names and figures used to designate the Church in the inspired books of the New Testament. Fenton
-
As for Canon 5, no one said baptism is optional! Now if it said "water" baptism you would have a point. But the Council cannot contradict itself, therefore it didn't qualify the word Baptism with "water" in that canon. Baptism is not optional; it must be received in actuality or desire.
As for Canon 2. A metaphor is a word or phrase used to describe or represent something else that is tangible (a person, place, thing or action). For example referring to God as "A Mighty Fortress" would be to use a metaphor. Or he's "fishing" for something (fishing meaning looking). I do not believe that water is being used to describe something else or an action, and neither does the Church. Water means water and not anything else. It must be received in actuality or desire. Therefore Canon 2 does not apply to your argument.
As for your other argument, I believe you are implying that the Grace of Justification does not merit salvation. This is proven false, not only from the context of Canon IV-Session 7, but from another Canon in the Council which says clearly that those who merit the Grace of Justification, merit Eternal Life...
If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema. The Council of Trent-Session VI-CANON XXXII
Again, the cited paragraphs are dealing with justification (a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior). Justification and Salvation are two different things. Justification does not necessarily merit the Grace of salvation. One can be justified and then damn oneself anyway.
Most importantly, "Baptism of Desire" (which is NOT de fide) CANNOT under circuмstance apply to non-Catholics. If ever possible (and this is only known to God) it would apply to pious catechumens at the point of death that already hold the Catholic Faith. The reason for this is that the Catholic Faith is the foundation for all justification.
Against Protestantism, Trent stated that Faith is not the only thing necessary for justification, but it is indeed necessary:
“But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons;…” (Session 6, Chapter VIII, Decree Concerning Justification).
-
These three basic types of definitions of the true Church of Jesus Christ have been in common use in sacred theology since the days of the great Jesuit theologian and controversialist, Gregory of Valentia (d. 1603). And, according to Gregory of Valentia, the broadest type of definition of the Church, the one which applies to this society as it lives in Heaven, in Purgatory, and on earth, is the formula describing it as "the multitude of those who have been gathered together by the grace of God's calling into the true worship of God and into the true and God-given knowledge of God, whether that knowledge be obscure, as it is in the case of the knowledge of the faith, or clear and manifest, as it is in the case of the blessed." Fenton
-
After reading your posts in this thread, you obviously misnamed the title of this thread.
You should have named it:
"Which Desires are Necessary Unto Salvation?
:facepalm:
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
Baptism, Holy Communion, and (for those who had fallen after Baptism) Confession.
Thank you for answering the question Ladislaus.
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
Does the desire for Holy Communion merit one who has not yet desired Baptism? Penance?
Again: :facepalm:
What does that have to do with anything??? The point is that it is possible to receive all three of the Sacraments "necessary to salvation" in desire with the correct circuмstances applying in each case.
The point is that YOU SAY that it is possible to receive all three of the Sacraments "necessary to salvation" in desire, but the Church says THE SACRAMENTS ARE NECESSARY.
That is the point.
-
After reading your posts in this thread, you obviously misnamed the title of this thread.
You should have named it:
"Which Desires are Necessary Unto Salvation?
:facepalm:
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
Baptism, Holy Communion, and (for those who had fallen after Baptism) Confession.
Thank you for answering the question Ladislaus.
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
Does the desire for Holy Communion merit one who has not yet desired Baptism? Penance?
Again: :facepalm:
What does that have to do with anything??? The point is that it is possible to receive all three of the Sacraments "necessary to salvation" in desire with the correct circuмstances applying in each case.
The point is that YOU SAY that it is possible to receive all three of the Sacraments "necessary to salvation" in desire, but the Church says THE SACRAMENTS ARE NECESSARY.
That is the point.
Earth to Stubborn. :fryingpan: 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.
-
After reading your posts in this thread, you obviously misnamed the title of this thread.
You should have named it:
"Which Desires are Necessary Unto Salvation?
:facepalm:
Well we all know the council didn't mean that because if it really meant that then it means BOD is a lie.
That doesn't answer the question.
Baptism, Holy Communion, and (for those who had fallen after Baptism) Confession.
Thank you for answering the question Ladislaus.
Now, taking one question at a time, would you then agree that the desire of these sacraments (Baptism, Holy Communion and Penance), if they cannot be received (saving infant water baptism) suffices to obtain the grace of justification?
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
Does the desire for Holy Communion merit one who has not yet desired Baptism? Penance?
Again: :facepalm:
What does that have to do with anything??? The point is that it is possible to receive all three of the Sacraments "necessary to salvation" in desire with the correct circuмstances applying in each case.
The point is that YOU SAY that it is possible to receive all three of the Sacraments "necessary to salvation" in desire, but the Church says THE SACRAMENTS ARE NECESSARY.
That is the point.
Earth to Stubborn. :fryingpan: Am I saying (the below) or is the Church???
The Church says...
He will not respond directly to your question if it gives credence to something he does not hold. It is quite frustrating to pin him down on one topic or to have him grant an undeniable point if it does not serve his purpose.
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.
-
Who was the very first person to use the words "Baptism of Desire"?
That is a question that demands an answer.
The Council of Trent adds the description of "of the desire thereof" and some people are saying that this means there's a Baptism of Desire in addition to the Baptism of Water. When and who started bandying about this term?
The sentence "or the desire thereof" would mean that a Catholic who has access to the sacraments or is in a location separated from the sacraments must have a desire for the sacraments. A Catholic should, in his heart, have a desire for the sacraments.
How does a non-Catholic on some unvisited Pacific Island out there in the Pacific Ocean desire the sacraments? Especially in the 1600's and not in todays highly connected world with TV, radio and the internet?
If the Council of Trent fathers intended to delineate a "Baptism of Desire" which would be separated from, but equal to, the other sacraments, well, they would have dedicated a complete docuмent for such a momentous event.
So, when, where and by who did the term "Baptism of Desire" become such common parlance in the Catholic Church?
Think of the Devil smoltering in Hell with the stench of sulfur everywhere. He's moaning to himself, "I don't care if some lost soul renounces Christ out of allegiance to me or if he remounces Christ for lust, or whether it's for great wealth or through deceptive lingo or just out of laziness, all I care is that the soul renounces Christ and I collect him as mine."
-
Who was the very first person to use the words "Baptism of Desire"?
That is a question that demands an answer.
The Council of Trent adds the description of "of the desire thereof" and some people are saying that this means there's a Baptism of Desire in addition to the Baptism of Water. When and who started bandying about this term?
Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri was a Latin scholar. The same can be said of another great Doctor, Saint Robert Bellarmine. The Dimond brothers are not Latin scholars. Bellarmine and Alphonsus know what Trent said and what it taught. Do you agree?
-
Who was the very first person to use the words "Baptism of Desire"?
That is a question that demands an answer.
The Council of Trent adds the description of "of the desire thereof" and some people are saying that this means there's a Baptism of Desire in addition to the Baptism of Water. When and who started bandying about this term?
The sentence "or the desire thereof" would mean that a Catholic who has access to the sacraments or is in a location separated from the sacraments must have a desire for the sacraments. A Catholic should, in his heart, have a desire for the sacraments.
How does a non-Catholic on some unvisited Pacific Island out there in the Pacific Ocean desire the sacraments? Especially in the 1600's and not in todays highly connected world with TV, radio and the internet?
If the Council of Trent fathers intended to delineate a "Baptism of Desire" which would be separated from, but equal to, the other sacraments, well, they would have dedicated a complete docuмent for such a momentous event.
So, when, where and by who did the term "Baptism of Desire" become such common parlance in the Catholic Church?
Think of the Devil smoltering in Hell with the stench of sulfur everywhere. He's moaning to himself, "I don't care if some lost soul renounces Christ out of allegiance to me or if he remounces Christ for lust, or whether it's for great wealth or through deceptive lingo or just out of laziness, all I care is that the soul renounces Christ and I collect him as mine."
Here is the history of the BOD theory (for catechumens ONLY) in a nutshell:
It begins with St Ambrose's speech on Valentinian in which there was a misinterpretation favorable to BOD. However, there is a following note of rectification that states that John 3:5 is to be taken literally.
Followed by:
- St Augustine quote favoring BOD, but then he himself rectifies his position in his writings for the donatists.
- There is an overwhelming concession of the fathers on necessity of church and water baptism.
- Theology of the new world in 1492. There is some BOD favorable opinion in dealing with native catechumens.
- Peace of Westphalia 1648 - Catholic monarchs start watering down dogma for co-existing with the protestant nations -> Reformation -> From political acceptance on BOD, personal acceptance followed. There is an assault of sacramentality as only vehicle of sanctifying grace
-> HERE COMES TRENT IN RESPONSE TO THE PROTESTANT HERESY
- Pope Pius IX 1848, there is misunderstanding on "invincible ignorance" in his allocution. The invincible ignorant is not guilty of heresy, only original and actual sins. There is an important distinction between torments for actual sins and the absence of God which is the result of Original Sin
- Here comes modern troubles! : Insertion by Cardinal Gibbons on questions of Baptism in the Catechism of Baltimore 1884 which follows the heresy of Americanism -> The speculation on BOD is erected into Church "official" teaching. Generations were raised thinking on this erroneous and fallible Baltimore Catechism as dogma.
----------
For almost 500 hundred years, since Protestanstism, the enemies of the Church have turn the theological opinion of BOD into a denial of EESN. These enemies have been trying to tear down Holy Mother Church by reducing her to the level of "just another church" and the destructive tool they have used is called "desire".
-
Is the following correct or not:
Since the unity of the social group is effected by the grace of God's calling, the adherence of any individual member, and, for that matter, of all the members, to the assembly itself is something ultimately due to a freely given and supernatural favor granted by God. There is absolutely no created intellectual nature, actual or possible, which could give its possessor the right to belong to this social unit. In other words, membership in this blessed company is not something which necessarily goes with membership in the human race or with the condition of an intellectual creature. Those who are privileged to belong to this assembly owe their blessing to the direct, supernatural, and gratuitous favor of God. Fenton
-
Trent lumps the Sacraments together but then explicitly states that not all the Sacraments are necessary for all, e.g. some of them (such as Penance) are conditionally necessary, i.e. making it clear that what applies to one Sacrament does not necessarily apply to the others. Trent goes out of its way to emphasize how different Penance is from Baptism. Baptism, by way of the character, is the gateway to all the other Sacraments. Quite a few Church Fathers taught that the "seal" (character) was an essential part of the grace of Baptism, and I hold to that also. It's the seal which conforms the soul to the likeness of Christ and makes us recognized by the Father as His sons. Without being conformed into sons of the Father through this character, we can never enter into the life of the Holy Trinity and therefore see God as He is (from within the Holy Trinity) in the beatific vision.
Trent dogmatically teaches that those without the character of Baptism are not subject to the Holy Father, and the Church teaches dogmatically that those not subject to the Holy Father cannot be saved.
Because a certain sacrament might not be necessary at a given time for a given individual, in no way means that the way they can be received is different. Using an example of food, water, and medicine, I can either have them delivered to my home or go and pick them up. Now even though an individual may only require one of these things, the ways he can receive them stands. And if that weren't enough the Council explicitly refers to each one of them (Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion), saying that each is necessary in fact or desire. Your other statement is proven false from the plain fact that Catechumens who desire baptism immediately, generally must wait. This they do in submission to the Holy Father among other things.
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
BAPTISM:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-Chapter IV
PENANCE:
As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to [Page 42] God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance. The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-CHAPTER XIV.
HOLY COMMUNION:
Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. The Council of Trent-The Thirteenth Session-CHAPTER VIII.
-
Trent lumps the Sacraments together but then explicitly states that not all the Sacraments are necessary for all, e.g. some of them (such as Penance) are conditionally necessary, i.e. making it clear that what applies to one Sacrament does not necessarily apply to the others. Trent goes out of its way to emphasize how different Penance is from Baptism. Baptism, by way of the character, is the gateway to all the other Sacraments. Quite a few Church Fathers taught that the "seal" (character) was an essential part of the grace of Baptism, and I hold to that also. It's the seal which conforms the soul to the likeness of Christ and makes us recognized by the Father as His sons. Without being conformed into sons of the Father through this character, we can never enter into the life of the Holy Trinity and therefore see God as He is (from within the Holy Trinity) in the beatific vision.
Trent dogmatically teaches that those without the character of Baptism are not subject to the Holy Father, and the Church teaches dogmatically that those not subject to the Holy Father cannot be saved.
Because a certain sacrament might not be necessary at a given time for a given individual, in no way means that the way they can be received is different. Using an example of food, water, and medicine, I can either have them delivered to my home or go and pick them up. Now even though an individual may only require one of these things, the ways he can receive them stands. And if that weren't enough the Council explicitly refers to each one of them (Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion), saying that each is necessary in fact or desire. Your other statement is proven false from the plain fact that Catechumens who desire baptism immediately, generally must wait. This they do in submission to the Holy Father among other things.
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
BAPTISM:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-Chapter IV
PENANCE:
As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to [Page 42] God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance. The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-CHAPTER XIV.
HOLY COMMUNION:
Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. The Council of Trent-The Thirteenth Session-CHAPTER VIII.
You keep posting the same thing. Perhaps you should be banned. :dancing-banana: :wink:
-
As for Canon 5, no one said baptism is optional! Now if it said "water" baptism you would have a point. But the Council cannot contradict itself, therefore it didn't qualify the word Baptism with "water" in that canon. Baptism is not optional; it must be received in actuality or desire.
As for Canon 2. A metaphor is a word or phrase used to describe or represent something else that is tangible (a person, place, thing or action). For example referring to God as "A Mighty Fortress" would be to use a metaphor. Or he's "fishing" for something (fishing meaning looking). I do not believe that water is being used to describe something else or an action, and neither does the Church. Water means water and not anything else. It must be received in actuality or desire. Therefore Canon 2 does not apply to your argument.
As for your other argument, I believe you are implying that the grace of justification does not merit salvation. This is proven false, not only from the context of Canon IV-Session 7, but from another Canon in the Council which says clearly that those who merit the Grace of Justification, merit Eternal Life...
If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema. The Council of Trent-Session VI-CANON XXXII
Again, the cited paragraphs are dealing with justification (a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior). Justification and Salvation are two different things. Justification does not necessarily merit the Grace of salvation. One can be justified and then damn oneself anyway.
Most importantly, "Baptism of Desire" (which is NOT de fide) CANNOT under circuмstance apply to non-Catholics. If ever possible (and this is only known to God) it would apply to pious catechumens at the point of death that already hold the Catholic Faith. The reason for this is that the Catholic Faith is the foundation for all justification.
Against Protestantism, Trent stated that Faith is not the only thing necessary for justification, but it is indeed necessary:
“But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons;…” (Session 6, Chapter VIII, Decree Concerning Justification).
Please read the whole Canon, Canterella. The Council does not say those who merit the grace of justification attain eternal life unless they depart in that grace. Also, I never mentioned anything about non-Catholic religions. If you believe in the possibility of eternal life for Catechumens who die without water baptism (through no fault of their own), then you believe the de fide teaching of Trent. They must also desire the Catholic faith (only) with belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation (St. Thomas Aquinas elaborates more on this) and have perfect contrition for their sins. They must desire to submit to all of Tradition (even if they do not yet understand it all). A desire for the true faith (the Catholic Faith) is the foundation for baptism of desire. This is also explained in the Council of Trent.
For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision, availeth anything, nor uncircuмcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-Chapter VII
Therefore Trent is not saying that desire of baptism merits the grace of justification without the desire for the Roman Catholic faith. Notice that the Catechumen begs for the faith, and not water baptism. One can have water baptism and not the faith. This would not merit eternal life. But if one begs for the Catholic faith and has perfect contrition for sins, then God grants him the faith and the baptism that he could not receive (through no fault of his own). Most people who desire the Catholic faith also desire water baptism. If one just happened to be unaware of water baptism, but desired the Catholic faith "only" (this person would be a candidate for implicit baptism of desire) up until the time he became aware.
-
Trent lumps the Sacraments together but then explicitly states that not all the Sacraments are necessary for all, e.g. some of them (such as Penance) are conditionally necessary, i.e. making it clear that what applies to one Sacrament does not necessarily apply to the others. Trent goes out of its way to emphasize how different Penance is from Baptism. Baptism, by way of the character, is the gateway to all the other Sacraments. Quite a few Church Fathers taught that the "seal" (character) was an essential part of the grace of Baptism, and I hold to that also. It's the seal which conforms the soul to the likeness of Christ and makes us recognized by the Father as His sons. Without being conformed into sons of the Father through this character, we can never enter into the life of the Holy Trinity and therefore see God as He is (from within the Holy Trinity) in the beatific vision.
Trent dogmatically teaches that those without the character of Baptism are not subject to the Holy Father, and the Church teaches dogmatically that those not subject to the Holy Father cannot be saved.
Because a certain sacrament might not be necessary at a given time for a given individual, in no way means that the way they can be received is different. Using an example of food, water, and medicine, I can either have them delivered to my home or go and pick them up. Now even though an individual may only require one of these things, the ways he can receive them stands. And if that weren't enough the Council explicitly refers to each one of them (Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion), saying that each is necessary in fact or desire. Your other statement is proven false from the plain fact that Catechumens who desire baptism immediately, generally must wait. This they do in submission to the Holy Father among other things.
If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and 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.The Council of Trent-The Seventh Session-Canon IV
BAPTISM:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 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.The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-Chapter IV
PENANCE:
As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to [Page 42] God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance. The Council of Trent-The Sixth Session-CHAPTER XIV.
HOLY COMMUNION:
Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. The Council of Trent-The Thirteenth Session-CHAPTER VIII.
You keep posting the same thing. Perhaps you should be banned. :dancing-banana: :wink:
I think I will be banning myself soon. :sign-surrender:
-
Earth to Stubborn. :fryingpan: 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.
-
Because a certain sacrament might not be necessary at a given time for a given individual, in no way means that the way they can be received is different.
Nonsense. Or do you believe in Holy Orders of desire?
-
Therefore Trent is not saying that desire of baptism merits the grace of justification without the desire for the Roman Catholic faith. Notice that the Catechumen begs for the faith, and not water baptism. One can have water baptism and not the faith. This would not merit eternal life. But if one begs for the Catholic faith and has perfect contrition for sins, then God grants him the faith and the baptism that he could not receive (through no fault of his own). Most people who desire the Catholic faith also desire water baptism. If one just happened to be unaware of water baptism, but desired the Catholic faith "only" (this person would be a candidate for implicit baptism of desire) up until the time he became aware.
See how it works:
This paragraph is not about Baptism of Desire any longer.
This paragraph is about "Faith of Desire", which is ultimately what this whole BOD promotion is about.
Notice that the Catechumen begs for the faith, and not water baptism.
The distinction is unnecessary. Water baptism is essential part of the Catholic Faith because it is the entrance to spiritual life. If the catechumen begs for the Faith and knows the basics of the Faith, he would absolutely BEG for receiving the water baptism, as established by Christ Lord Himself in John 3:5, which is the ONLY divinely revealed baptism that gets rid of original and actual sin. No soul enters Heaven with the stain of sin, original or actual.
Most people who desire the Catholic faith also desire water baptism.
No person that truly desires the Catholic Faith will oppose to be water baptized. Why would they?
If one just happened to be unaware of water baptism, but desired the Catholic faith "only" (this person would be a candidate for implicit baptism of desire) up until the time he became aware
If the person is unaware of water baptism but desires the Catholic Faith, we encounter the following problem:
No reasonable human being would not "desire" to have the Catholic Faith if he knew that the Catholic Faith is the ONLY way of salvation to acquire life everlasting. Everyone on earth would wish to enter the Church if they knew that outside of Her there is no possible salvation but ignorance of the Faith is never an excuse. Ignorance of the Faith suffices for damnation as clearly stated in Church dogma. If it was, this would CONTRADICT the Catholic criteria for salvation in its entirety:
Catholic dogmas for salvation require:
1) explicit faith (cannot be a heretic),
2) reception of the sacraments (member of the Church),
3) and submission to the Roman Pontiff (cannot be a schismatic)
-
Ignorance of the Faith is not an excuse. The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” was not really a problem before the year 1800, since the teaching of Catholic Tradition that no one can be saved who is ignorant of the Gospel was quite clear and kept by all. Could you imagine what had become of the "conquistadores" if they believed that the native could be saved in his ignorance?. Catholic evangelization had never happened but thanks to the growing modernism in XIX century, combined with the liberals’ hijacking of Pope Pius IX’s weak statements, the heretical theory of salvation for the invincibly ignorant exploded and became the belief of many priests and laity. After all, it is easier and nicer to live in harmony with the world.
Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, a famous 16th century Dominican theologian, puts it this way:
“When we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith. For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come, will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief. As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ.”
Christ died for all men, so all could be saved and reach Heaven. Reality is most are damned because most fail to accept God's grace. This divine grace although available to all, is only efficacious to some. Bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the Gospel to them. They are without excuse, as St. Paul says.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”
-
Just an observation: In order to make it as accessible as possible, God chose the most abundant natural resource on earth to be the matter for the sacrament of baptism: water. Furthermore, unlike the other sacraments (matrimony excluded) He arranged that anyone, be they a heretic, a child, a pagan, a man, a woman, etc., ANYONE can baptize in case of necessity.
-
Just an observation: In order to make it as accessible as possible, God chose the most abundant natural resource on earth to be the matter for the sacrament of baptism: water. Furthermore, unlike the other sacraments (matrimony excluded) He arranged that anyone, be they a heretic, a child, a pagan, a man, a woman, etc., ANYONE can baptize in case of necessity.
Wonderful observation :smile:
-
Earth to Stubborn. :fryingpan: 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...
Canon Law (1917): “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737). “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.” (Canon 1239)
-
Because a certain sacrament might not be necessary at a given time for a given individual, in no way means that the way they can be received is different.
Nonsense. Or do you believe in Holy Orders of desire?
Nonsense. The Council of Trent specified the three Sacraments. Does the Council say Holy Orders can be received by desire??? Please post the evidence as I have for Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion. Do you believe in Matrimony of desire??? The Church is in need of that Sacrament as well. Trent was not talking about what the Church needs "as a whole". Trent was speaking of individuals. That why the canon reads "not necessary for every individual" as opposed to "not necessary for the Church."
"Without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof" Council of Trent: Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4)
-
Canon Law does not teach or define BoD but tolerates the opinion and, contrary to earlier Church practices, for pastoral reasons allows Christian burial for catechumens, based on the possibility that they might be saved. It's well established that the Church tolerates the opinion of BoD.
But the time has come for the Church to put the clamps down on the heretical application of BoD to non-Catholics. BoD has been the wedge by which all of Catholic dogma was eventually overturned by the enemies of the Church.
-
Nonsense. The Council of Trent specified the three Sacraments. Does the Council say Holy Orders can be received by desire??? Please post the evidence as I have for Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion. Do you believe in Matrimony of desire??? The Church is in need of that Sacrament as well. Trent was not talking about what the Church needs as a whole. Trent was speaking of individuals. That why the canon reads "not necessary for every individual" as opposed to "not necessary for the Church."
Then say what you mean and stop speaking gibberish. You stated as a matter or principle that the Sacraments must all be receivable in the same manner (i.e. by desire). You HAVE no evidence that Baptism can be received by desire, just your misreading of the Council of Trent.
"Without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof" Council of Trent: Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4)
You can color the passage all you want. Trent is not teaching BoD here. We've gone through this a bzillion times.
Just as the character conferred by the Sacrament of Holy Orders is essential to the grace of the Sacrament, so too with the other character Sacraments. Consequently, the character Sacraments cannot be received by "desire".
-
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![/b]
You can repeat it all you want. You are suffering from a lapse in logic. That's why in all scholastic philosophy and theology curricula, Logic 101 is the prerequisite course. It's dangerous to attempt philosophy or theology without a solid grounding in logic.
Trent is teaching that the Sacraments in general are necessary for salvation and that some of them (at least) can be received by desire. Trent is not teaching, as you would have it, that all the Sacraments that are necessary for salvation are receivable by desire. It's pretty simple, but you don't see it because you don't want to see it.
-
Canon Law does not teach or define BoD but tolerates the opinion and, contrary to earlier Church practices, for pastoral reasons allows Christian burial for catechumens, based on the possibility that they might be saved. It's well established that the Church tolerates the opinion of BoD.
But the time has come for the Church to put the clamps down on the heretical application of BoD to non-Catholics. BoD has been the wedge by which all of Catholic dogma was eventually overturned by the enemies of the Church.
The Church tolerates or teaches??? The Church would not teach a "heretical opinion" that would lead to the direct loss of souls in her Catechisms and Canon Law, and they certainly wouldn't define it in an Ecuмenical Council (which they clearly did at Trent). If this isn't enough, throughout the centuries her greatest doctors have taught baptism of desire (Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Liguori). You are countering a heretical application of baptism of desire with your own heresy.
-
[The Church would not teach a "heretical opinion"
I have never stated the BoD, as classically understood, is "heretical". It's an opinion rooted in speculative theology that the Church has tolerated. Problem is when BoD gets extended to undermine EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.
99% of BoDers end up in heresy when they explain BoD by extending it to those who do not have Catholic faith or by claiming that such as these are saved WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
If this isn't enough, throughout the centuries her greatest doctors have taught baptism of desire (Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Liguori). You are countering a heretical application of baptism of desire with your own heresy.
That's another BoDer lie. Cyprian, Tertullian, and Chrysostom taught BoB but explicitly REJECTED BoD. St. Augustine is the ONLY Church Father who TENTATIVELY (read his language) floated the idea of BoD but then retracted it and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence. Aquinas picked it up from Augustine, and then everyone else from Aquinas. And because of the adoption by Aquinas it became an extremely widespread opinion. But this does not change the fact that there's no evidence for this being revealed truth nor that it's definable as dogma.
I personally reject this opinion. I see there to be much more evidence against it than for it. But if someone wanted to hold it, I have no problem with that ... PROVIDED THAT IN THE PROCESS THEY DO NOT REJECT OTHER CATHOLIC DOGMAS. 99% of BoDers hide behind Aquinas and Bellarmine but then articulate BoD in a way that undermines EENS and the dogmatic teaching of Trent.
THAT is my problem.
-
If you want to hold that a couple dozen or so catechumens throughout history who got killed suddenly before their Baptism date could be saved, then more power to you. Don't try to tell me, however, that non-Catholics can be saved by means of some desire implicit in trying to be a good guy.
-
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![/b]
You can repeat it all you want. You are suffering from a lapse in logic. That's why in all scholastic philosophy and theology curricula, Logic 101 is the prerequisite course. It's dangerous to attempt philosophy or theology without a solid grounding in logic.
Trent is teaching that the Sacraments in general are necessary for salvation and that some of them (at least) can be received by desire. Trent is not teaching, as you would have it, that all the Sacraments that are necessary for salvation are receivable by desire. It's pretty simple, but you don't see it because you don't want to see it.
The Council of Trent:
1) Baptism: Without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof.
2) Penance: Either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament.
3) Holy Communion: those to wit, who eating in desire.
All three sacraments necessary to salvation: Without them or without the desire thereof.
-
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?
-
If you want to hold that a couple dozen or so catechumens throughout history who got killed suddenly before their Baptism date could be saved, then more power to you. Don't try to tell me, however, that non-Catholics can be saved by means of some desire implicit in trying to be a good guy.
I never said anything about non-Catholics. You are not following the thread very well, and you are putting words in my mouth. I am talking about those who desire to be Catholic (only). You are overreacting to the abuse of Roman Catholic Church teaching on baptism of desire, by the Novus Ordo "church". Also, each soul is no less important to the Church than to Christ Himself, who will go to the utmost lengths to find a lost sheep and bring him safely home. That there could even be a possibility that the Roman Catholic Church (the Pillar and Ground of the Truth) could lose "a couple of dozen souls" (as you nonchalantly put it) due to her own teaching is to put it plainly: RIDICULOUS and UN-CATHOLIC.
-
If this isn't enough, throughout the centuries her greatest doctors have taught baptism of desire (Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Liguori). You are countering a heretical application of baptism of desire with your own heresy.
That's another BoDer lie. Cyprian, Tertullian, and Chrysostom taught BoB but explicitly REJECTED BoD. St. Augustine is the ONLY Church Father who TENTATIVELY (read his language) floated the idea of BoD but then retracted it and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence. Aquinas picked it up from Augustine, and then everyone else from Aquinas. And because of the adoption by Aquinas it became an extremely widespread opinion. But this does not change the fact that there's no evidence for this being revealed truth nor that it's definable as dogma.
No Father of the Church taught anything about saving efficacy of a Baptism of "desire". St Augustine was the only one to speculate specifically about the saving efficacy of BOD and there is proof that even he himself changed his earlier position on this subject in the anti-Pelagian writings, to say that even catechumens are damned if they are not baptized before death.
-
If this isn't enough, throughout the centuries her greatest doctors have taught baptism of desire (Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Liguori). You are countering a heretical application of baptism of desire with your own heresy.
That's another BoDer lie. Cyprian, Tertullian, and Chrysostom taught BoB but explicitly REJECTED BoD. St. Augustine is the ONLY Church Father who TENTATIVELY (read his language) floated the idea of BoD but then retracted it and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence. Aquinas picked it up from Augustine, and then everyone else from Aquinas. And because of the adoption by Aquinas it became an extremely widespread opinion. But this does not change the fact that there's no evidence for this being revealed truth nor that it's definable as dogma.
No Father of the Church taught anything about saving efficacy of a Baptism of "desire". St Augustine was the only one to speculate specifically about the saving efficacy of BOD and there is proof that even he himself changed his earlier position on this subject in the anti-Pelagian writings, to say that even catechumens are damned if they are not baptized before death.
"How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever!
-
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? 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.
-
If you want to hold that a couple dozen or so catechumens throughout history who got killed suddenly before their Baptism date could be saved, then more power to you. Don't try to tell me, however, that non-Catholics can be saved by means of some desire implicit in trying to be a good guy.
I never said anything about non-Catholics. You are not following the thread very well, and you are putting words in my mouth. I am talking about those who desire to be Catholic (only).
Here lies the problem. The description here is no more about "Baptism of Desire". It is about "Faith of Desire", and is completely wrong because the Catholic Faith is the foundation of all justification.
According to Trent (On justification, Chapter 6) in adults, for Baptism to be fruitful is necessary that:
. Have belief in what has been divinely revealed (Catholic Faith)
. Have true contrition for past sins
. A sincere resolve to sin no more
. Hope in the mercy of God
. Love for God and hatred for sins
. Resolve to receive Baptism , begin a new life in Christ, and keep God's commandments.
If BOD were possible at all, it would be strictly applied to catechumens only that already hold the Catholic Faith and are in the point of death.
-
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.
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?
-
If this isn't enough, throughout the centuries her greatest doctors have taught baptism of desire (Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Liguori). You are countering a heretical application of baptism of desire with your own heresy.
That's another BoDer lie. Cyprian, Tertullian, and Chrysostom taught BoB but explicitly REJECTED BoD. St. Augustine is the ONLY Church Father who TENTATIVELY (read his language) floated the idea of BoD but then retracted it and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence. Aquinas picked it up from Augustine, and then everyone else from Aquinas. And because of the adoption by Aquinas it became an extremely widespread opinion. But this does not change the fact that there's no evidence for this being revealed truth nor that it's definable as dogma.
No Father of the Church taught anything about saving efficacy of a Baptism of "desire". St Augustine was the only one to speculate specifically about the saving efficacy of BOD and there is proof that even he himself changed his earlier position on this subject in the anti-Pelagian writings, to say that even catechumens are damned if they are not baptized before death.
"How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever!
Unfortunately one supposed quote from one doctor who changed his mind does not make a case for you. This is called selective quoting, and is a tactic of heretics. Here is just a list of some of the doctors (including St. Augustine) who taught that one can be saved through desire of baptism along with Popes and Catechisms who taught the same...
• Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century): The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXII: "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood".
To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics: "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had "another baptism to be baptized with."
• Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century): Enchiridion Patristicuм under "de baptisme”: "In truth we also have a second laver which is the same as the first, namely that of blood, concerning which Our Lord said, "And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized' (Luke 12:50) after He had already been baptized; for He came by water and blood as John wrote, that He might be baptized by water and glorified by blood, likewise too that He might make us called by water and chosen by blood; He poured forth these two baptisms from the wound dug in His side so that those who believed in His blood might be cleansed by water and those who were cleansed by water might bear His blood; this is the baptism which takes the place of the laver which has not been received and restores what was lost."
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Enchiridion Patristicuм: "If anyone does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation, excepting only martyrs who gain the kingdom even without water."
• St. John Chrystostome, Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus,"Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."
• St. Ambrose, Doctor of the Church (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."
• St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church (5th Century): From City of God, Book XIII, Chapter 7: "Of the Death Which the Unbaptized Suffer for the Confession of Christ: For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John 3:5 made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" Matthew 10:32 and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it." Matthew 16:25"
• Pope Innocent II (12th Century): From his letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned." (Denzinger 388)
• St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church (13th century): In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I: “God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies."
• St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (13th century): Summa Theologica, Whether there are two ways to be distinguished of eating Christ's body?
“Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally.”
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."
• St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century): Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms: "I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; by falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."
• 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."
• Council of Trent (16th century): Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4): 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.
• Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): "....should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." [section on baptism]
• The Douay Catechism (17th century): "Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism? A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."
• St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church (18th century): Moral Theology Manual, Bk. 6, no. 95, Concerning Baptism: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
St. Alphonsus Liguori on the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128-129 (Duffy): "Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament."
• Pope Pius IX (19th century): Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863: “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”
• Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries): Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
[Note: The Baltimore Catechism was issued by the Third Council of Baltimore in 1884, and was approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States, where it remained the standard for nearly a century. Even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after being published, the content on the threefold baptism has remained in the catechism to this day.]
• St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century): Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Catechism of St. Pius X):
The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
-
Let's talk about selective quoting :smile:
One example from above:
• 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:
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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).
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.
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.
You're a very rare breed if you believe this, so therefore I have zero problem with your position on BoD.
As for Bishop Fellay, he obviously meant an unconverted "Hindu in Tibet"; if one converts, then he's no longer a "Hindu in Tibet" but a "Catholic".
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.
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.
Cf. this thread here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Necessity-of-Means
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.
-
Let's talk about selective quoting :smile:
One example from above:
• 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:
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].
-
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...
These quotes undoubtedly refer to BOD in the case of catechumens only, which was the Church fallible teaching before the taint of Modernism.
Notice that in the BOD theory, for the Baptism of Desire to be efficacious, a catechumen must hold the Catholic Faith first which is the foundation of all justification and must be at the point of death but "something" prevented him to receive the water baptism.
But this is not what this is about. For let me ask you something in all sincerity to truly reveal what we are talking about here:
Do you believe that a Jew can be saved as a Jew or a Moslem as a Moslem or a Hindu as Hindu? (Notice none of these are catechumens for they do not hold the Catholic Faith).
A yes or no will suffice.
-
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.
-
These quotes undoubtedly refer to BOD in the case of catechumens only, which was the Church fallible teaching before the taint of Modernism.
You have just plainly been brainwashed Canterella, and you are overreacting to the modernism in the Church. The Church and her doctors, popes and catechisms are not fallible when taken as a whole. One individual or an individual quote (such as the one you provided supposedly from St. Augustine ) can be fallible. Not the whole Church for centuries and surely not in her infallible canons. As shown earlier, the sacraments necessary for salvation can clearly be received in desire. Trent even went out of its way to highlight each of the sacraments (so there could be no doubt).
Notice that in the BOD theory, for the Baptism of Desire to be efficacious, a catechumen must hold the Catholic Faith first which is the foundation of all justification and must be at the point of death but "something" prevented him to receive the water baptism.
The Church teaching (not theory) is that one who desires the Roman Catholic faith "only" can receive baptism of desire. He does not have to be an "official" catechumen. He need not know every single point of Catholic doctrine, as long as he believes explicitly in the Trinity and Incarnation, submits himself to Church tradition and has perfect contrition for his sins.
But this is not what this is about. For let me ask you something in all sincerity to truly reveal what we are talking about here:
Do you believe that a Jew can be saved as a Jew or a Moslem as a Moslem or a Hindu as Hindu? (Notice none of these are catechumens for they do not hold the Catholic Faith).
No. I have explained this several times already. Bellarmine also explains this in the quote I provided, in my last reply to you.
-
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.
-
You have just plainly been brainwashed Canterella, and you are overreacting to the modernism in the Church.
On the contrary, Cantarella is very balanced on this issue. You are fighting with the wrong people. Why don't you "do battle" against the 95% of Traditional Catholics who reject the necessity of the Sacraments and the Catholic faith for salvation? Those are the real enemies. Go after LoT for his Pelagian/gnostic/Protestant ecclesiology. It's THESE errors that have done and continue to do the most harm to the Catholic Faith, not the "fringe" Feeneyite position.
Given your hostility, I'm sure that it'll come out in the wash, as it has with others who post the way you do, that you don't REALLY believe as you claim to.
-
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.
-
It is a relief that Ad Jesum per Mariam thinks that BOD could only apply to he who "believes explicitly in the Trinity and Incarnation, submits himself to Church tradition and has perfect contrition for his sins".
Those are good news!
He is the second person that limits BOD to those who at least have the basics of the Faith. The only disagreement then is that Ad Jesum per Mariam states that BOD is de fide when it is not. BOD is not an infallible teaching.
-
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"
-
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.
Catechumens who die with perfect contrition of sins, receive their baptism and become part of the faithful "in fact" upon their death. While they are living they are not yet baptized, hence they are members of the Church by desire, and are not formally part of the faithful.
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].
-
Earth to Stubborn. :fryingpan: 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.
-
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.
We went over this before Canterella. The "justified" merit salvation provided they depart in that grace. This makes two dogmas that you deny.
If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema. The Council of Trent-Session VI-CANON XXXII
Also (as I continue to post into the thin air), I said that Church teaching is infallible, and that doctors (plural), popes (plural), catechisms (plural) all taken as a whole over the centuries (not to mention Trent) together constitute Church teaching (not a fallible opinion), and that an individual or individual quote is fallible. Therefore your quote by Pope Pius XII does not detract in the slightest from what I said. It also continues to prove that your are either not reading my posts or you are deliberately ignoring what you don't wan't to see.
-
It is a relief that Ad Jesum per Mariam thinks that BOD could only apply to he who "believes explicitly in the Trinity and Incarnation, submits himself to Church tradition and has perfect contrition for his sins".
Those are good news!
He is the second person that limits BOD to those who at least have the basics of the Faith. The only disagreement then is that Ad Jesum per Mariam states that BOD is de fide when it is not. BOD is not an infallible teaching.
Denying two explicit Canons of Trent can certainly lead to the belief that Baptism of Desire is not de fide. Not to mention all the popes, doctors and catechisms that taught baptism of desire over the centuries which when taken together clearly constitutes Church teaching. Teaching that no Catholic is free to reject or relegate to a doubtful opinion. The fact that you do this is clearly not good news.
-
Therefore your quote by Pope Pius XII does not detract in the slightest from what I said.
The quote was not intended to detract your statement in any way. On the contrary, we both agree that saints and theologians in isolation are not infallible. Not saint, bishop, or theologian is the binding teaching authority of the Church. The disagreement resides in that you say that BOD is infallible dogma because of an apparent "consensus" in the Church; when it is not.
No Pope, Council, or theologian says that Baptism of Desire is a sacrament. Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that Baptism of Desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church. BOD does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains.
Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments (March 3, 1547):
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Notice that BOTH Faith and Desire are necessary for justification, not only Desire and not only Faith. It is very clear in Trent that both are necessary. It is not a "OR" proposition but an "AND". As a matter of fact, in claiming that Trent teaches ONE OR THE OTHER (Faith OR Desire), you turn Trent's statement into a heretic statement that Trent itself anathematizes because then you are claiming that water alone without the will or desire is sufficient to justify, which was condemned as heresy in the canons.
-
Therefore your quote by Pope Pius XII does not detract in the slightest from what I said.
The quote was not intended to detract your statement in any way. On the contrary, we both agree that saints and theologians in isolation are not infallible. Not saint, bishop, or theologian is the binding teaching authority of the Church. The disagreement resides in that you say that BOD is infallible dogma because of an apparent "consensus" in the Church; when it is not.
No Pope, Council, or theologian says that Baptism of Desire is a sacrament. Likewise no Pope, Council, or theologian says that Baptism of Desire incorporates one into the Catholic Church. BOD does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains.
You are not reading my posts carefully Canterella. I never said BOD was infallible due to an apparent consensus in the Church. I said due to the dogma of Trent it was de fide. You fail to read closely and/or make distinctions Canterella. This is because you are more intent on winning then learning.
Session 7, Canon 4 of the Sacraments in General from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments (March 3, 1547):
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.
Notice that BOTH Faith and Desire are necessary for justification, not only Desire and not only Faith. It is very clear in Trent that both are necessary. It is not a "OR" proposition but an "AND". As a matter of fact, in claiming that Trent teaches ONE OR THE OTHER (Faith OR Desire), you turn Trent's statement into a heretic statement that Trent itself anathematizes because then you are claiming that water alone without the will or desire is sufficient to justify, which was condemned as heresy in the canons.
Your digging deep into your bag now Canterella. This sounds like something from the Dimond bros. Also, you are putting words in my mouth again. I never said "faith" or "desire", I said "in fact" or "desire" in regards to the Sacraments necessary for salvation. Those who desire to be Roman Catholic and believe in the Trinity and Incarnation, and have a desire to submit to Tradition have the faith. If they have contrition for their sins they merit the grace of justification and are members of the Church (in desire). If they fail to receive water baptism (through no fault of their own) and they depart in that grace, they receive their baptism and merit eternal life.
-
As I've pointed out before, holding an opinion is not the same as teaching it and proposing it for belief. It has to be proposed as something "to be held by all the faithful". Just because an opinion is widely held doesn't make it de fide.
-
AJPM, I invite you once again to go after the Pelagian Cushingites and their heretical ecclesiology.
-
AJPM, I invite you once again to go after the Pelagian Cushingites and their heretical ecclesiology.
He never will because they are not his enemy. No one, not a one, can smoke the BOD and not end up believing in salvation for those who have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor belief in Christ. When has anyone seen a thread by a BODer condemning salvation without belief in Christ? It "ain't" going to happen. This guy is a liar just like all BOders. They talk St. Thomas but they believe Garrigou-LaGrange. Is that not a lie?
-
You are not reading my posts carefully Canterella. I never said BOD was infallible due to an apparent consensus in the Church. I said due to the dogma of Trent it was de fide. You fail to read closely and/or make distinctions Canterella. This is because you are more intent on winning then learning.
The infallible Canons of Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire and actually anathematizes anyone who would "make a metaphor" of Christ's words in John 3:5, "Unless a man be born again..." That means we must take that phrase literally.
Also, you fail to make the important distinction between Justification and Salvation. To put it simply, a person who is in the state of justification but has not received the other effects, is like one of the just of the Old Testament: Their sins were forgiven them; but they could not ascend to Heaven precisely because they were sons of Adam and not God's. They had to be united to Christ, because "no one ascends to the Father except through me" which was accomplished for them by Christ when He "descended into hell," as stated in the Creed. In the New Law, this union with Christ, this becoming "the children of God" can ONLY happen through Baptism.