Author Topic: I got it! Council of Trent Condemns Baptism of Desire! (Read 2146 times)

mobius · « **on:** January 26, 2014, 03:54:58 PM »

One of the Best books on subject:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Imagine a Catechumen desires Baptism (at what point does he receive FULL REMISSION OF ALL SINS?????)

Why? Because the COUNCIL of TRENT states that if you Receive Holy Bapstim (the Sacrament) and then state "after-the-fact" you did not "receive" the Remission of sins (hence the desirous Catechumen) then you are Anathema!

Council of Trent: DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN, Canon 5:

"5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only eased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2014, 04:26:18 PM »

Quote from: mobius

Imagine a Catechumen desires Baptism (at what point does he receive FULL REMISSION OF ALL SINS?????)

My understanding of the question is...

The catechumen that desires to be baptized would receive remission of their sins when they are baptized; If the catechumen should die prior to the desired baptized, then they would be justified by their desire to be baptized (which would include a remission of their sins).

The title of this thread is misleading because, as we have been discussing, the Council of Trent does not condemn Baptism of Desire.

mobius · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2014, 05:23:07 PM »

What is more noble, to die BOB or just a general desire for Baptism? Both are convoluted in themselves; however, what of the Divine Providence of God? Groups like CMRI and SSPX believe in NFP because they accept BOD and BOB - No Providence of God has a hand in things.

The greatest books are on the Holy Will of God and "nothing" Happens by Mistake.

So some in Heaven without Baptism, others with. Seems like a Contradiction.

One man is poor and has 15 children and goes to Heaven because He did the Holy Will of God (accepted God's Will).

Another uses NFP and is Middle/Rich Class and has No Children or maybe or 1 or 2 at best. Is he doing God's Will? Is he in Heaven using NFP?

If Masturbation is a Sin, so is NFP. The Semen is wasted and the Female Reproductive V is used as a Hand.

Seems clear to me.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2014, 06:09:44 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: mobius

Imagine a Catechumen desires Baptism (at what point does he receive FULL REMISSION OF ALL SINS?????)

My understanding of the question is...

The catechumen that desires to be baptized would receive remission of their sins when they are baptized; If the catechumen should die prior to the desired baptized, then they would be justified by their desire to be baptized (which would include a remission of their sins).

The title of this thread is misleading because, as we have been discussing, the Council of Trent does not condemn Baptism of Desire.

You still cannot get away from Trent's decree, which St. Alphonsus echoes that teaches the sacrament is necessary for salvation. A BOD is not a sacrament, therefore a BOD cannot save anyone.

St. Alphonsus teaches that only heretics say the sacraments are not necessary for salvation and that all must be baptized or they will not be saved.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2014, 06:10:33 PM »

songbird · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2014, 06:37:35 PM »

It is not so much that "WE" know is a soul has been saved. Nothing is impossible with God. It is between Him and the soul. The only reason that in my opinion that we have what we feel is a need to know if they/the soul is in Grace with God, is for burial and Mass. Nothing is impossible with God and whatever He does is perfect.

Cantarella · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2014, 08:28:38 PM »

Quote from: songbird

It is not so much that "WE" know is a soul has been saved. Nothing is impossible with God. It is between Him and the soul. The only reason that in my opinion that we have what we feel is a need to know if they/the soul is in Grace with God, is for burial and Mass. Nothing is impossible with God and whatever He does is perfect.

When Our Lord walked the earth, he was very clear about the requirements for salvation. He did not command Iimpossibilities and was very explicit on the necessity of Sacraments to obtain life everlasting. We can learn the New Law for Salvation from Our Lord Himself. I agree that Salvation is between a soul and God, but the knowledge is there, for us to grasp. God has indeed revealed Himself throughout history through the Scriptures and the infallibility of the Church.

Ambrose · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2014, 11:32:54 PM »

Quote from: mobius

One of the Best books on subject:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Imagine a Catechumen desires Baptism (at what point does he receive FULL REMISSION OF ALL SINS?????)

Why? Because the COUNCIL of TRENT states that if you Receive Holy Bapstim (the Sacrament) and then state "after-the-fact" you did not "receive" the Remission of sins (hence the desirous Catechumen) then you are Anathema!

Council of Trent: DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN, Canon 5:

"5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only eased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

What are the authors qualifications to publish a book on theology?

mobius · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2014, 03:32:10 AM »

Huh? Gee Ambrose, why not ask him? Furthermore, what gives you the "right" and qualifications to write on Theology as well?

Funny, from what it looks like the author speaks and writes Greek and Latin, do you? I have some of his books, they are different but they appear very well written.

Just stick with the question. Canon 5 Original Sin. Pretty noteworthy.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: mobius
One of the Best books on subject:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Imagine a Catechumen desires Baptism (at what point does he receive FULL REMISSION OF ALL SINS?????)

Why? Because the COUNCIL of TRENT states that if you Receive Holy Bapstim (the Sacrament) and then state "after-the-fact" you did not "receive" the Remission of sins (hence the desirous Catechumen) then you are Anathema!

Council of Trent: DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN, Canon 5:

"5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only eased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

What are the authors qualifications to publish a book on theology?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2014, 07:49:10 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: mobius
One of the Best books on subject:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Imagine a Catechumen desires Baptism (at what point does he receive FULL REMISSION OF ALL SINS?????)

Why? Because the COUNCIL of TRENT states that if you Receive Holy Bapstim (the Sacrament) and then state "after-the-fact" you did not "receive" the Remission of sins (hence the desirous Catechumen) then you are Anathema!

Council of Trent: DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN, Canon 5:

"5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only eased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

What are the authors qualifications to publish a book on theology?

My guess is that it is not a pre-V2 orthodox theologian. I'm a pretty good guesser no?

Then they accuse us of "publishing a book on theology" when we only present what the Church has taught.

Ambrose · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2014, 02:49:07 PM »

I agree. Does anyone know the actual qualifications of all of these writers on theology that so many blindly follow?

Richard Ibranyi?
Michael and Peter Dimond?
Bro. Robert Mary, author of Fr. Feeney and the Truth about Salvation?
William De Tucci?
Other Saint Benedict Center writers, we could make a list?

The Church has not approved any of the writings from these men. They have no training in theology, and have no commission to conduct themselves as a theologian, or explain matters of theology to Catholics.

Their books have not been submitted for examination to the Church. They all lack an imprimatur.

Matto · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2014, 02:57:02 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

The Church has not approved any of the writings from these men. They have no training in theology, and have no commission to conduct themselves as a theologian, or explain matters of theology to Catholics.

Their books have not been submitted for examination to the Church. They all lack an imprimatur.

What. Do you expect them to have the Novus Ordo examine and approve of their books? That whole process is broken. You could say the same about all of the sedevacantist writers you follow. Nobody writing a book today can claim to have the authority of the Church unless they are Novus Ordo, and the Novus Ordo is a false church so their books aren't approved either.

Ambrose · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2014, 03:04:40 PM »

Quote

Huh? Gee Ambrose, why not ask him? Furthermore, what gives you the "right" and qualifications to write on Theology as well?

Funny, from what it looks like the author speaks and writes Greek and Latin, do you? I have some of his books, they are different but they appear very well written.

Just stick with the question. Canon 5 Original Sin. Pretty noteworthy.

I only believe and express what has been taught by the approved theologians. You will find no difference in what I believe from what is found in the manuals of Van Noort, or Wilhelm and Scannell for instance.

I learn from the theologians who are commissioned to explain the Faith, and whenever I write, I say only what they would say. I never take liberties with sacred doctrine. I never pretend that I am qualified, I look only to the masters to teach me.

I never think that I know more than the Church's great doctors and theologians. Unlike these characters, I know my place.

Ambrose · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2014, 03:11:09 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose

The Church has not approved any of the writings from these men. They have no training in theology, and have no commission to conduct themselves as a theologian, or explain matters of theology to Catholics.

Their books have not been submitted for examination to the Church. They all lack an imprimatur.

What. Do you expect them to have the Novus Ordo examine and approve of their books? That whole process is broken. You could say the same about all of the sedevacantist writers you follow. Nobody writing a book today can claim to have the authority of the Church unless they are Novus Ordo, and the Novus Ordo is a false church so their books aren't approved either.

No, there is no need for these books. The Church's doctors and theologians have explained EENS, BoD, and BoB countless times over and over again in approved books.

Some writers use epikeia to justify their writing based on the fact that they are writing about the crisis, and theology pertaining to the crisis. These men, however, are writing books on matters of settled theology, and there are dozens if not hundreds of approved books to read from written before the crisis.

In addition, these men are teaching a novel and heretical doctrine, which contradicts the teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire and Blood. These books will most certainly be placed on the Index when the Church reforms, and Catholics should never be reading them.

Matto · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2014, 03:20:51 PM »

You are your own authority.

We all are. There is no authority rejecting Vatican II and the Novus Ordo yet we reject it. Now we are on our own because the Church is broken. We hope and pray that she will be fixed again before the end of the world.