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

Author Topic: Interpretation of Vatican II  (Read 2460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Interpretation of Vatican II
« Reply #45 on: March 03, 2026, 12:06:34 PM »
How could someone have the faith, get baptised and not desire the sacraments, unless they are insane? This is redundant.
Well, the idea that he could receive justification under those conditions is condemned nevertheless 

If that does not satisfy you, we can read Trent Sess. 6:

Quote
CHAPTER IV.


A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
 
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.

If a man receives the laver of regeneration without the desire thereof is he justified?

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Interpretation of Vatican II
« Reply #46 on: March 03, 2026, 12:20:14 PM »
How could someone have the faith, get baptised and not desire the sacraments, unless they are insane? This is redundant.
In the days of Trent, protestantism was going crazy all over Europe.  Protestants were FORCEFULLY baptizing people and claiming it was valid.  Trent was pushing back on this idea and saying that a valid baptism must have 2 things - the valid administration of the sacrament AND the desire (of the person being baptized).

Without the desire to be baptized, the baptism is invalid.  This what Trent was specifying.


Re: Interpretation of Vatican II
« Reply #47 on: March 03, 2026, 04:38:07 PM »
In the days of Trent, protestantism was going crazy all over Europe.  Protestants were FORCEFULLY baptizing people and claiming it was valid.  Trent was pushing back on this idea and saying that a valid baptism must have 2 things - the valid administration of the sacrament AND the desire (of the person being baptized).

Without the desire to be baptized, the baptism is invalid.  This what Trent was specifying.
Ok, that explains why Trent's catechism would say not to baptise adults. Because, if they are not fully willing, it would risk being invalid and sacrilege. 


Online OABrownson1876

  • Supporter
Re: Interpretation of Vatican II
« Reply #48 on: March 03, 2026, 11:31:49 PM »
I do wonder how many of the BODer's on this forum will actually tell their Hindu neighbors that they must become good Catholics if they want to stay out of hell.  I can hear a good number of them now, "Well, you see, there is this thing called Baptism by Desire, and even if you don't become a Catholic, but you do good things...I mean, if you do naturally good things your whole life, God will reward you in the end. After all, God is a merciful God."  

It is what Bishop Williamson called Nith, Ooey Gooey Mush.

Re: Interpretation of Vatican II
« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2026, 02:40:28 AM »
The Dimond brothers pointed out Fr. Michael Müller as a good source for understanding what Pope Pius IX meant, when he spoke of invincible ignorance. I thought I would share these passages on the subject. Does anyone know of clerics who think and teach the same as Fr. Müller here? 

From "The Church and Her Enemies", 1880, p. 284:

Here it may be asked: Are all those who are out of the Church equally guilty in the sight of God? We answer: No; some are more guilty than others. It cannot be considered the personal fault, however great and terrible the misfortune, of any individual of the children of Adam that our first parents sinned. So it is not the fault of those who were born and educated in any of the errors or negations of Protestantism, in its hundred various forms. Involuntary error is a misfortune to be pitied, a calamity to be deplored. Only when entered into, or persisted in, against light and knowledge, can it be considered a sin, or other than a sin of ignorance. There are persons who sometimes commit actions which, in themselves, are very wrong, but are not punishable in the sight of God, because they do not proceed from wilful malice, as those who commit them are not aware in the least that by such actions God is offended. So there may be persons who live in infidelity or heresy without being in the least aware of it. Now such inculpable ignorance will, of course, not save them; but, if they fear God, and live up to their conscience, God, in his infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.

But there are others who are guilty in the sight of God. They are those who know the Catholic Church to be the only true Church, but do not embrace her faith, as also those who could know her, if they would candidly search, but who, through indifference, and other culpable motives, neglect to do so.