Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Rognvald on November 10, 2022, 12:26:17 AM
-
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
I've been reading up on BoD for a while. I found this quite interesting and helpful. Kind of a long read, but it is worth it.
I believe the only reason this is such a contested issue on this forum is because people today are pretty much saying that everyone can get into heaven as long as they are good. You guys are over correcting this issue.
It is heretical to say that anyone can be saved, even outside of the Church. It is also, however, heretical to deny BoD.
I know I've had this debate before, but I just found this article and thought y'alls might benefit from reading it.
Viva Cristo Rey
-
Now STOP. Ask yourself, is the meaning of these words: ‘Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ literal, if BoD is true?
Got your answer?
Select the text below for it to be visible:
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and therefore reduces to some sort of metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit,’ let him be anathema” (Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Session 7, canon 2, A.D. 1547 - Denzinger 1615).
As we can see, the words of Christ must be taken literally.
Did your article address this enormous debate-ending ace-in-the-hole dogma? No, of course not, because it's impossible.
This video is all you need to be convinced of the true position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5hL0ZshMQ
However, there is much, much more evidence and, don't worry, all the objections I ever heard are refuted. No Father taught BoD, no saint ever believed in salvation without knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, while some saints held BoD for catechumens.
Your article espouses the incredibly abominable heresy of salvation, not with faith alone, but without faith at all. Truly disgusting and easily refuted.
I'll send you some more material if you want after my exam.
-
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
I've been reading up on BoD for a while. I found this quite interesting and helpful. Kind of a long read, but it is worth it.
You should not read things like that, by that I mean things that blatantly contradict the very words of Our Lord. You should not be using those words against the words of Our Lord, and if you don't think that is what is being done, if you've convinced yourself that nothing of the sort is happening, then you're fooling yourself.
The litmus test of a BOD is so simple that it's almost inconceivable anyone believes in a BOD at all, since all any a BODer needs to do, is to simply use the Divine Revelation, which are the words of Our Lord in John 3:5, to prove there is a BOD, or to prove that a BOD does not contradict this Divine Revelation.
-
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
[Ephesians 4:5]
One. Not three. Not grace separated from the Sacrament. One baptism of water and the Holy Ghost. (John 3:5)
See how simple that is compared to the contrived reasoning of BOD adherents?
-
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
[Ephesians 4:5]
One. Not three. Not grace separated from the Sacrament. One baptism of water and the Holy Ghost. (John 3:5)
See how simple that is compared to the contrived reasoning of BOD adherents?
Baptism of desire is not the sacrament of baptism and yet applying the term “baptism” to the baptism of blood and baptism of desire has been a practice of the Church for centuries. Even if it is not a baptism in the strict sense, it nevertheless is a baptism in the analogical sense. Just as receiving the Eucharist by making a spiritual “Communion” is not a true Communion, but given the name “Spiritual Communion” in the analogical sense. In both cases, no one is denying the primary term. On the same point, St. Albert the Great says that the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire can only be called baptism when water baptism is lacking.[7] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn7)
In this sense, "Baptisms of desire" and "Baptism of blood" are not sacraments, but simply fulfil the requirements when the sacrament cannot be received due to extraordinary circuмstances. Thus, one speaks metaphorically of "different Baptisms" yet they all obtain the same sanctifying grace. In fact, Our Lord Himself spoke of different Baptisms during His public ministry. There was "the Baptism wherewith I am to be baptized" (Lk. 12:50), referring to a Baptism of blood, which was His crucifixion. Describing the descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, he says "For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence"
^^
These are not my words, but this issue is described in the article.
-
You should not read things like that, by that I mean things that blatantly contradict the very words of Our Lord. You should not be using those words against the words of Our Lord, and if you don't think that is what is being done, if you've convinced yourself that nothing of the sort is happening, then you're fooling yourself.
The litmus test of a BOD is so simple that it's almost inconceivable anyone believes in a BOD at all, since all any a BODer needs to do, is to simply use the Divine Revelation, which are the words of Our Lord in John 3:5, to prove there is a BOD, or to prove that a BOD does not contradict this Divine Revelation.
"I never said that I agree with you that there's such a thing as a BoD that can lead to salvation without the Sacrament. I just said that it's permissible for a Catholic to believe in it, as St. Robert and St. Alphonsus held it. To make an analogy, I think that Molinism is wrong and bad and harmful (I agree with the Thomists), but I would also say that it's permissible for a Catholic to hold ... as the Church has explicitly permitted it without actually resolving the question. It's not that difficult. I don't believe in any BoD and think it's theological garbage, without any foudation in faith or reason, but is just emotion-based speculation. But I disagree with the Dimonds who hold that it's formally heretical and not permitted for Catholics to believe." - Quote from Ladislaus
I believe it is very closed minded and, dare I say, stubborn of you to say 'It's obvious, you guys are just idiots.' This guy Ladislaus seems to be the biggest defender of your position, and yet he holds that it is permissible to believe in it. Some of the greatest theological minds on earth believed in BoD, and it was an uncontested issue in the Faith until recently.
-
It is heretical to say that anyone can be saved, even outside of the Church. It is also, however, heretical to deny BoD.
Yes, it is heretical to say that people can be saved outside the Church.
No, it is not heretical to say that there's no such thing as a BoD that suffices for salvation.
I can show you 3 Dogmatic Definitions to back up the first statement above.
Please find 1 Dogmatic Definition that indicates that BoD exists, that explains what it is, and that states that BoD can suffice for salvation in the absence of having actually received the Sacrament of Baptism (with matter + form).
You won't find anything for #2.
There's merely a mention of a votum without which there can be no justfication. There's no Canon in Trent explaining what must be believed about it. We do not give the assent of faith to phrases like "Baptism of Desire," but to propositions, and nowhere is the proposition that must be believed defined. There's no definition that justification suffices for salvation (post-Tridentine theoloian Melchior Cano, who was at Trent and spoke twice there, held that infidels, for example, could be justified but not saved). So every piece of it is missing.
-
Yes, it is heretical to say that people can be saved outside the Church.
No, it is not heretical to say that there's no such thing as a BoD that suffices for salvation.
I can show you 3 Dogmatic Definitions to back up the first statement above.
Please find 1 Dogmatic Definition that indicates that BoD exists, that explains what it is, and that states that BoD can suffice for salvation in the absence of having actually received the Sacrament of Baptism (with matter + form).
You won't find anything for #2.
There's merely a mention of a votum without which there can be no justfication. There's no Canon in Trent explaining what must be believed about it. We do not give the assent of faith to phrases like "Baptism of Desire," but to propositions, and nowhere is the proposition that must be believed defined. There's no definition that justification suffices for salvation (post-Tridentine theoloian Melchior Cano, who was at Trent and spoke twice there, held that infidels, for example, could be justified but not saved). So every piece of it is missing.
In Sacred Scripture Our Lord alludes frequently to the internal dispositions, which must precede the outward manifestation of faith. In verses John 3:3-8, Christ speaks of Baptism five times but Baptism of water only once. For instance, He mentions the man "who is born of the spirit" (6, 8). St. Thomas Aquinas discussed the verse concerning Baptism by water (Jn 3:5) in the following context:
As it is written (I King 16:7), "Man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in the heart, though not in body: thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "The circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but God."
The primacy of the spirit is nowhere more plainly expressed than when Cornelius, a Roman centurion, is received into the Church. Note the sequence of events:
"While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circuмcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.... And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Act. 10:44-48).
Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick (1796-1863), points out in this regard that: " Cornelius and his family received the Holy Ghost whilst Peter was yet speaking to them, before they were baptized. (Acts 10, 44) Others may receive grace in like manner, and be justified before the actual reception of the sacrament, the grace whereof they may receive by anticipation, God accepting the desire of their heart, and subsequently in its reception conferring more abundant grace. This may particularly happen in regard to such as are snatched out of life before they can receive the sacrament. The believer, whilst preparing for its reception, may suddenly feel the approach of death, when no minister of God or other person is at hand to make the sacred ablution. Relatives, under the influence of strong prejudices, may refuse to the dying man the opportunity of receiving the sanctifying rite. In such circuмstances his faith, desire, and love will no doubt obtain for him from the divine goodness the grace which he earnestly implores. This sentiment is not at all inconsistent with the belief of the necessity of Baptism for all who have it in their power to receive it, and of its efficacy, whereby grace is imparted to the worthy receiver." (The Catholic Doctrine on Justification, Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick, page 133-134)
Our Lord also stated, "Everyone that shall confess me before men, I will also confess before My Father in Heaven" (Mt. 10:32). This was later taken by many saints as a reference to Baptism of blood in place of water, as undergone by the catechumen martyrs.
Our Lord also declares; “Unless[19] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn19) you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (John 6:8). Now if we affirm that someone who dies in the state of grace without receiving the Eucharist will be saved we would obviously have to qualify the statement of Our Lord by adding "at least in desire".[20] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn20)
What is more is that St. Paul clearly states that by the state of Justification (being in the state of grace) we are made sons of God “Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access through faith into this grace wherein we stand: and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God” ( Romans 5:1).
Now St. Paul also affirms “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ” - Romans 5:17 (See also Titus 3:7). Hence, it clearly follows that if we die justified we indeed shall attain to the reward of the just, which is eternal life.
Doesn't this go against the Dogma "No Salvation outside the Church"?
No. The Dogma "No Salvation outside the Church" is an objective judgment based on the words of Christ and Church teaching. The Church however by means of this does not propose to judge the internal dispositions of individuals as this judgment is reserved to God alone for the Church does not Judge the internals or the dead for that matter, she judges objective facts. With this in mind, we must further affirm that even if we distinguish the visible, structural elements of the Church from the spiritual life of grace flowing in her members (body and soul of the Church) they only designate differently the same Church.[21] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn21) We must affirm this fact since we must never forget that there is no belonging to the soul of the Church if one refuses to belong to its body[22] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn22). Since what is meant by "the Body of the Church" is simply the visible Society of the Roman Catholic Church, while by the term "the Soul of the Church" we are simply referring to the supernatural bonds of faith, hope and Charity.
St. Robert Bellarmine further explains that "Since the gospel pertains to the faithful alone, and since none has faith in the gospel except the faithful, there was no need in the gospels to describe the form in which infidels will be judged, but it was sufficient to make the general statement: He who does not believe, will be condemned (Mark 16); and: He who believes not in the Son will not see life (John 3); and with regard to children: The fault of one man resulted in the condemnation for all men (Rom 5)." - St. Robert Bellarmine, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book 6, Chap. 5.
The Church is necessary for all for salvation. This necessity is not only one of precept[23] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn23) but also of means (either as a cause or condition without which one cannot be saved) and this at least in desire. Disobedience to this command would forestall salvation.
As regards those who belong to the Church St. Augustine points out that, "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39). Yet we must keep in mind that no one who positively repudiates the Church can be said to belong to the Church in any sense. As St. Cyprian put it: "he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother."
Pope Pius XII exclaimed the same when he stated, "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love".[24] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn24)
Further more St. Robert Bellarmine in his work" De Ecclesia Militante" states "there are those who belong to the soul [of the Church] and not the body, as [are] catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity [state of grace], which can happen." Again he also affirms that "Catechumens however if not in re at least in voto are in the Church and are therefore able to be saved."[25] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn25)
While such persons are said to belong to the Soul of the Church it's important to keep in mind that no body can be said to belong to the soul of the Church if he does not at least desire to belong to the body of the Church.
Ultimately, to understand this dogma we must primarily understand primarily that when the Church declares it to an infallible to truth that "There is no Salvation outside the Church", she (the Church) is making an "Objective" judgment. She is not making a "Subjective" Judgment! She judges from the facts and hence she does not seek to judge the individual dispositions of men. This is for God alone. She judges from the facts. These facts are that those who separate themselves from the Church or those who are not part of her have not communion with her and with this knowledge and the Truths of the gospel she can unhesitatingly declare with Christ (her divine founder) that those who reject the Church reject salvation (Matt 18:17). The Church does not claim to judge each individual person, but errors. Hence, those who hold to these errors and die in them cannot be saved. This is precisely how this dogma is to be understood.
St. Thomas Aquinas when speaking of the salvation of infidels states that “Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that of his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, (in which case a desire for baptism would still be necessary) or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).” [26] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn26)
In dealing with the same issue St. Bonaventure states that “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." [27] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn27)
As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel that affirmed that “no grace is given outside the Church” just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld that “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ”.
A dilemma that we pose for those who deny this teaching (baptism of desire) is that when Pope Boniface VIII declared that there "Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins"[28] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn28). We all agree that a person can be justified outside the Church. However, this justification means remission of sins, because it puts one in the state of grace. Thus, if we are to take this Bull rigorously as the Feeneyites wish[29] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn29), then we must say also that there can be no justification/remission of sins before entrance in the Church/water Baptism. How is it that such persons will often admit that one can be justified before baptism of water and then at the same time declare that such justified persons are still totally outside the Church and are not members of the Church in any sense of the word? This goes directly against the words of Pope Boniface VIII who made it clear that "Outside the Church is no salvation nor remission of sins". This must obviously mean that those who are justified without water baptisms are indeed members in some sense of the term or else one could never admit that a person could be justified (have the remission of their sins) before baptism (by water).
It is only with a proper understanding of the faith that we are able to put the Church's teaching on this issue in its proper context, without avoiding excess or defect. For that same reason, it is worth noting that the Church has always condemned the following as errors opposed to the faith:[30] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn30)
First error: "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Proposition XV).
Second error that: "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation." (Proposition XVI).
Third error: "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." (Proposition XVII).
Fourth error: "Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church." (Proposition XVIII).
^^Not my words, quoted from the article
-
I believe it is very closed minded and, dare I say, stubborn of you to say 'It's obvious, you guys are just idiots.' This guy Ladislaus seems to be the biggest defender of your position, and yet he holds that it is permissible to believe in it. Some of the greatest theological minds on earth believed in BoD, and it was an uncontested issue in the Faith until recently.
Yes, it is clearly permissible for Catholics to believe in BoD. When the Church has declared 3 Doctors of the Church who believed in it (with 2 of them after Trent), it's certain that the Church is not condemning BoD as heretical.
Problem is with the slippery slope where increasingly broad or "loose" interpretations of BoD (again, since the Church hasn't clarified what is is, how it works, and under what conditions it could work), this expasion of what this "BoD" is has led to the erosion and undermining of EENS. If a Great Thumb worshipper can be saved by some implicit "BoD", the EENS becomes utterly meaningless.
-
"I never said that I agree with you that there's such a thing as a BoD that can lead to salvation without the Sacrament. I just said that it's permissible for a Catholic to believe in it, as St. Robert and St. Alphonsus held it. To make an analogy, I think that Molinism is wrong and bad and harmful (I agree with the Thomists), but I would also say that it's permissible for a Catholic to hold ... as the Church has explicitly permitted it without actually resolving the question. It's not that difficult. I don't believe in any BoD and think it's theological garbage, without any foudation in faith or reason, but is just emotion-based speculation. But I disagree with the Dimonds who hold that it's formally heretical and not permitted for Catholics to believe." - Quote from Ladislaus
I believe it is very closed minded and, dare I say, stubborn of you to say 'It's obvious, you guys are just idiots.' This guy Ladislaus seems to be the biggest defender of your position, and yet he holds that it is permissible to believe in it. Some of the greatest theological minds on earth believed in BoD, and it was an uncontested issue in the Faith until recently.
Simply use the Divine Revelation, which are the words of Our Lord in John 3:5, to prove there is a BOD, or to prove that a BOD does not contradict this Divine Revelation.
-
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
[Ephesians 4:5]
One. Not three. Not grace separated from the Sacrament. One baptism of water and the Holy Ghost. (John 3:5)
See how simple that is compared to the contrived reasoning of BOD adherents?
.
The expression of three baptisms is figurative-- like speaking of the Church as Peter's Barque or the mustard seed (the Church isn't literally a boat nor an agricultural product). Like all figurative language, it's analogical and imprecise. St Gregory nαzιanzen says there are four baptisms, in fact. He actually uses that expression-- four baptisms. Think you he was unfamiliar with the scripture?
.
Its a cheap rebuttal is what I'm saying. Does anyone who denies BoD literally and honestly think those who believe in BoD think there are nine sacraments (three baptisms and the other six)? If one does, one clearly has never read anything about the issue. If not, why does this silly rebuttal keep popping up?
-
There's a really interesting concurrent thread on the home page-- God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/).
It is interesting because posters are discussing, in relative obscure and penetrating detail, the theology of predestination, of the various distinctions in God and man's will, and so forth. I say without any irony that the thread is an excellent read.
What one does not find in the thread is anyone saying "why can't you just take the simple and straightforward plain meaning of the scriptures-- 1 Tim 2:4 clearly states God wills all men to be saved; is this not a much simpler doctrine than the gymnastics of the theologians to explain away scripture's plain meaning?"
Why is such asinine argumentation absent from that thread? Why does this 'plain meaning' canard continually rear its ignorant head for some 'plain' meanings but not for others? And how does one decide when the 'plain' meaning is in fact plain, versus when the 'plain' meaning needs theology to illumine it? In a decade of discussing this issue online and offline, with strangers and neighbors, I have yet to find any proponent of 'plain meanings' insist on the plain meaning of any other scripture beside John 3:5. Is it just ignorance? Confirmation bias? Malevolence? Why does this apparent rule of faith only ever assert itself for this ONE scriptural passage?
-
.
The expression of three baptisms is figurative-- ...
It's an expression that's offensive to pious ears at the very least and misleading at worst ... even if some saints used it. St. Cyprian taught the heresy that the Baptism of heretics was invalid.
What's ironic, though, is that for those who claim that Trent taught BoD, there are only TWO Baptisms, not 3, not 4.
If, as you guys claim, Trent taught there can be no justification without the Sacrament or the Desire ... where's mention of BoB there? In fact, according to that statement, there's no such thing as BoB that does not reduce to BoD. So your "3 Baptisms" is heretical ... by your own standards for interpreting this passage in Trent. This is actually further evidence that Trent was not teaching the "Three Baptisms" in this passage, as we have been asserting all along.
-
It's an expression that's offensive to pious ears at the very least and misleading at worst ... even if some saints used it. St. Cyprian taught the heresy that the Baptism of heretics was invalid.
What's ironic, though, is that for those who claim that Trent taught BoD, there are only TWO Baptisms, not 3, not 4.
If, as you guys claim, Trent taught there can be no justification without the Sacrament or the Desire ... where's mention of BoB there? In fact, according to that statement, there's no such thing as BoB that does not reduce to BoD. So your "3 Baptisms" is heretical ... by your own standards for interpreting this passage in Trent. This is actually further evidence that Trent was not teaching the "Three Baptisms" in this passage, as we have been asserting all along.
.
I think you missed the point. Do you honestly think those who believe in BoD believe in the existence of more than seven sacraments?
-
.
The expression of three baptisms is figurative
What is the figurative meaning of three?
What even... I thought you were smart. How can three baptisms be metaphorical three means three.
Whag you're basically saying is: there is three baptisms, which means there is only one baptism.
That's not a metaphor, that's a contradiction.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/)
Why is such asinine argumentation absent from that thread? Why does this 'plain meaning' canard continually rear its ignorant head for some 'plain' meanings but not for others? And how does one decide when the 'plain' meaning is in fact plain, versus when the 'plain' meaning needs theology to illumine it? In a decade of discussing this issue online and offline, with strangers and neighbors, I have yet to find any proponent of 'plain meanings' insist on the plain meaning of any other scripture beside John 3:5. Is it just ignorance? Confirmation bias? Malevolence? Why does this apparent rule of faith only ever assert itself for this ONE scriptural passage?
Because the Church chose this particular passage and anathematized everyone who doesn't take it literally. It's in the 2nd post on this thread.
Curiously, nobody wants to refute it. Which I guess is good, since dogmas are to be accepted as is and not explained away. But you're not accepting it, are you?
-
What is the figurative meaning of three?
What even... I thought you were smart. How can three baptisms be metaphorical three means three.
Whag you're basically saying is: there is three baptisms, which means there is only one baptism.
That's not a metaphor, that's a contradiction.
.
If you expect others to be patient with you as you stumble through parroting the cruel and falsely zealous indignation of the Dimonds, then you do well to show the same patience toward others. You are entering, what, month four of your discovery of Catholic Tradition? Shall I quiet down so I can learn at your feet?
-
.
If you expect others to be patient with you as you stumble through parroting the cruel and falsely zealous indignation of the Dimonds, then you do well to show the same patience toward others. You are entering, what, month four of your discovery of Catholic Tradition? Shall I quiet down so I can learn at your feet?
You are right . Please excuse my rudeness.
-
Dimond Derangement Syndrome is a thing around here. You can pull all the proofs you want against BOD as a doctrine, but once you use MHFM people dismiss it outright.
-
Dimond Derangement Syndrome is a thing around here. You can pull all the proofs you want against BOD as a doctrine, but once you use them people dismiss it outright.
.
Weird, as though strangers are less open to you when you lead by calling them idiots and heretics.
.
Put you on the yoke that is sweet and mild?
-
There's a really interesting concurrent thread on the home page-- God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/).
It is interesting because posters are discussing, in relative obscure and penetrating detail, the theology of predestination, of the various distinctions in God and man's will, and so forth. I say without any irony that the thread is an excellent read.
What one does not find in the thread is anyone saying "why can't you just take the simple and straightforward plain meaning of the scriptures-- 1 Tim 2:4 clearly states God wills all men to be saved; is this not a much simpler doctrine than the gymnastics of the theologians to explain away scripture's plain meaning?"
Why is such asinine argumentation absent from that thread? Why does this 'plain meaning' canard continually rear its ignorant head for some 'plain' meanings but not for others? And how does one decide when the 'plain' meaning is in fact plain, versus when the 'plain' meaning needs theology to illumine it? In a decade of discussing this issue online and offline, with strangers and neighbors, I have yet to find any proponent of 'plain meanings' insist on the plain meaning of any other scripture beside John 3:5. Is it just ignorance? Confirmation bias? Malevolence? Why does this apparent rule of faith only ever assert itself for this ONE scriptural passage?
Because the Council of Trent said that John 3:5 must be understood literally in the very context of justification of the impious.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is conveyed a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, after the Gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
"AS IT IS WRITTEN" - what does that mean to you? In context it clearly means that John 3:5 is to be understood literally.
Also, MHFM asked an Oxford latin scholar for her opinion on the phrase, "aut eius voto" (or the desire for it) and she said that it could be read as being inclusive (i.e. both-and) or exclusive (either-or). The context would determine how to read it. But if Trent is giving that phrase context by quoting John 3:5 and indicating that it is to be understood literally, then the context is that the Sacrament of Baptism is required as a necessity of means. This is further corroborated by Trent's statement concerning the Sacrament of Baptism:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canon 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account should distort those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5] into some metaphor: let him be anathema.”
So Trent uses John 3:5 in both the context of justification of the impious and the Sacrament of Baptism and in both cases they take pains to emphasize the literal meaning of it.
For reference: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/)
-
By the way, the Oxford latin scholar had no skin in the game. She was not on any side of this argument.
-
I highly recommend reading the MHFM article I linked above. It contains a tremendous amount of important information. They are very careful not to overstate their position nor contradict any dogma or even any non-infallible papal pronouncements in their material. They simply take dogmas and Sacred Scripture as understood by the Church for centuries at face value. They don't try to manipulate the meaning of docuмents to satisfy the requirements of some pre-determined position. What you will find in reading their material is that the BOD/implicit faith position is the creation of theologians, not popes.
-
By the way, the Oxford latin scholar had no skin in the game. She was not on any side of this argument.
So, I took have a strong background in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. 4 Years Latin / Greek in High School, 4 Years Latin / Greek at University (Loyola University Chicago), and 3 Years Latin / Greek in Grad School (The Catholic University of America). I completed all the coursework for Ph.D. but decided I didn't want to spen another 5 years on the exams and the disseration.
Originally I believed in BoD because, well, I just took it for granted what everybody said that Trent taught it. One day I decided to pick up the entire Treatise on Justification in Latin and read the entire thing. It's one thing to read that sentence out of context, and quite another to read it IN context of the entire treatise.
So, this being a logical construct more than a grammatical one, it labors under the same ambiguity as equivalent English constructs would ... except for 2 things ...
1) immediately afterwards, the Council gives as proof text for this famous line Our Lord's teaching that no one can enter the Kingdom except through water AND the Holy Ghost. 2) Trent's use of the Latin "aut" instead of "vel"
3) reading it the BoDer way positively rules out BoB as anything distinct (per their way of reading it, BoB would be heretical if understood as something that doesn't reduce to BoD)
I can go into more detail, but after I read the actual Latin in its context, it became clear to me that Trent was not teaching Baptism of Desire.
And the Dimond Brothers have that great vidoe about St. Peter Canisius' Catechism that clearly shows that this prominent Trent theologian clearl did not believe in BoD.
-
Because the Council of Trent said that John 3:5 must be understood literally in the very context of justification of the impious.
"AS IT IS WRITTEN" - what does that mean to you? In context it clearly means that John 3:5 is to be understood literally.
Also, MHFM asked an Oxford latin scholar for her opinion on the phrase, "aut eius voto" (or the desire for it) and she said that it could be read as being inclusive (i.e. both-and) or exclusive (either-or). The context would determine how to read it. But if Trent is giving that phrase context by quoting John 3:5 and indicating that it is to be understood literally, then the context is that the Sacrament of Baptism is required as a necessity of means. This is further corroborated by Trent's statement concerning the Sacrament of Baptism:
So Trent uses John 3:5 in both the context of justification of the impious and the Sacrament of Baptism and in both cases they take pains to emphasize the literal meaning of it.
For reference: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/ (https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/)
.
Well, that is a different argument-- it's an argument from Trent, not from scripture. Which is fine. I was criticizing the argument from scripture.
.
If you read "as it is written" in Yul Brunner's voice it might read like an invocation of the literal language. If you don't, it reads like a reference or citation. I have always read it simply as a reference or citation, and I think that is the natural reading.
.
I think the more relevant context is the actual description of justification given in the next few paragraphs. We read that the sinner comes to justification once he possess supernatural charity-- which the council says is signified by his turning from sin and resolving to follow the commandments of God. We read that baptism is but the instrumental cause of justification, a description incompatible with your reading. The Dimond's quote it in their article, but they do not appear to grasp the significance of this description.
-
.
Weird, as though strangers are less open to you when you lead by calling them idiots and heretics.
.
Put you on the yoke that is sweet and mild?
Actually, if you would listen to some of their older recordings with people who call in to ask questions, they aren't that way at all. They wind up resorting to those labels during debates with people who just simply are not getting it, and honestly, you need to be blunt with some people about their heresy. Is it a good thing to do all the time? I think not, and have repeatedly criticized this tactic.
But, that doesn't change the fact that they are right in this area of theology, which, unfortunately, due to a bias against them has led to people dismissing their work entirely. Hence the term "Dimond Derangement Syndrome".
What you will find in reading their material is that the BOD/implicit faith position is the creation of theologians, not popes.
Yes, this is exactly what it is. It exists to address a potentiality, which is the vocation and role of the theologian. It is not a position in-and-of itself for laymen to take. BOD most certainly is NOT a doctrine or dogma of the Church.
Take the example above of the "4 baptisms" of St. Gregory: we find examples of such things throughout the Fathers but always taken from the proper context and understanding of the material. Many of them, when they speak of BOD or BOB, tend to mean it as applicable to one who is already baptized. This is because the efficacious grace received by either means is similar to that received by baptism, because it eliminates sin and temporal punishment due to sin. Effectively, the BOD and BOB of the Fathers comes to be indistinguishable from Perfect Contrition or Martyrdom, both of which provide the efficacious graces outlined above. Something which can only be achieved by one who has been regenerated through baptism (water and the Holy Ghost) into the Body of Christ.
This idea that one who is not a member of the Body, such as an infidel or even a catechumen, can attain such grace contradicts John 3:5 and Trent and the teaching of the Fathers. Sure, we can try to make some sort of exception for the rare catechumen based upon St. Alphonsus or St. Robert, but that's a major exception which, again, lies purely in the realm of the speculation of theologians. Yet to say an infidel can attain to such grace purely through desiring it is outright heresy, falling between a pseudo-Pelagianism or even the anathema sola Fide of the Lutherans.
-
Actually, if you would listen to some of their older recordings with people who call in to ask questions, they aren't that way at all. They wind up resorting to those labels during debates with people who just simply are not getting it, and honestly, you need to be blunt with some people about their heresy. Is it a good thing to do all the time? I think not, and have repeatedly criticized this tactic.
But, that doesn't change the fact that they are right in this area of theology, which, unfortunately, due to a bias against them has led to people dismissing their work entirely. Hence the term "Dimond Derangement Syndrome".
.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that my objections to the Dimonds is just their uncouth manners. I object as strongly to their theology. But their theology is so superficial that their indefatigable rashness and vitriol prove more memorable.
.
-
.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that my objections to the Dimonds is just their uncouth manners. I object as strongly to their theology. But their theology is so superficial that their indefatigable rashness and vitriol prove more memorable.
.
That's fair, thanks for clarifying.
For transparency, even though I agree with them on this particular issue I have serious problems with their theological opinions elsewhere, such as where to attend Mass, how literally every traditional cleric on the face of the earth is a de-facto heretic to be avoided, and their end-times eschatology, while convincing, misaligns wildly with the opinions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. On top of that, they tend to nurture a cult-like mentality by selling themselves as the only outlet for true Catholic teaching.
But, I digress, as that's not the topic of the thread.
-
So, this is what "AS IT IS WRITTEN" means ...
This means that what follows is the Scriptural Proof for how there can be no justification without the laver or the desire for it ... because (as it is written) ... Our Lord taught that water AND the Holy Spirit are required to enter the Kingdom.
This is the main reason that the justification passage must be read as a logical "AND", since this would be the equivalent of teaching ...
No one can be justified without the laver OR the votum for it, because the Lord taught that both the laver AND the votum are required.
They're making analogy --- laver is to (Our Lord's) water, as votum is to (Our Lord's) Holy Spirit, and the entire Treatise on Justification just explained how it is the Holy Spirit that inspires all the necessary dispositions to properly receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Laver AND Votum BECAUSE Water AND the Holy Spirit
As the Oxford lady said, it's ambiguous without disambiguation from context, but the "AS IT IS WRITTEN" passage does exactly that, disambiguate it. This Oxford lady just didn't have the knowledge of Catholic theology of Scripture to recognize that.
I know that it's common among the Anti-BoDers to (mis)read "AS IT IS WRITTEN" to mean (take this literally), but that's NOT what the expression means, and it's actually shooting yourselves in the foot not to recgonize what it actually means, since it is in fact the key to understanding that BOTH the laver AND the votum are required for justification.
-
Why is such asinine argumentation absent from that thread? Why does this 'plain meaning' canard continually rear its ignorant head for some 'plain' meanings but not for others? And how does one decide when the 'plain' meaning is in fact plain, versus when the 'plain' meaning needs theology to illumine it? In a decade of discussing this issue online and offline, with strangers and neighbors, I have yet to find any proponent of 'plain meanings' insist on the plain meaning of any other scripture beside John 3:5. Is it just ignorance? Confirmation bias? Malevolence? Why does this apparent rule of faith only ever assert itself for this ONE scriptural passage?
So Mith, you are saying that John 3:5 can, or actually means something other than what it is saying, but as is typical, you stop right there with what amounts to nothing more than and unfounded gratuitous assertion. Why would you do that?
Either prove what you are saying, or admit that we are to understand Our Lord as it is written.
-
So, this is what "AS IT IS WRITTEN" means ...
This means that what follows is the Scriptural Proof for how there can be no justification without the laver or the desire for it ... because (as it is written) ... Our Lord taught that water AND the Holy Spirit are required to enter the Kingdom.
This is the main reason that the justification passage must be read as a logical "AND", since this would be the equivalent of teaching ...
No one can be justified without the laver OR the votum for it, because the Lord taught that both the laver AND the votum are required.
They're making analogy --- laver is to (Our Lord's) water, as votum is to (Our Lord's) Holy Spirit, and the entire Treatise on Justification just explained how it is the Holy Spirit that inspires all the necessary dispositions to properly receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
Laver AND Votum BECAUSE Water AND the Holy Spirit
As the Oxford lady said, it's ambiguous without disambiguation from context, but the "AS IT IS WRITTEN" passage does exactly that, disambiguate it. This Oxford lady just didn't have the knowledge of Catholic theology of Scripture to recognize that.
I know that it's common among the Anti-BoDers to (mis)read "AS IT IS WRITTEN" to mean (take this literally), but that's NOT what the expression means, and it's actually shooting yourselves in the foot not to recgonize what it actually means, since it is in fact the key to understanding that BOTH the laver AND the votum are required for justification.
While what you say is true, focusing on the words; or / desire / vow / votum, I don't think clears up anything for those a BODers who are already so laser focused on the same words that they don't, won't or can't see anything else.
Consider the fact that a BODers do not even understand that the canon so often referenced is condemning the heresy of justification through faith alone.
And consider the reason they do not understand this is because they have predisposed their minds to, and consequently insist that canon is defining a BOD - *that's* the *only* context they have in their mind when they read that canon. Which means whatever they read will mean only what they already believe. This means that the context of what Trent said is lost on them right from the get-go.
Keeping the true context of that canon means that the focus should be squarely on the word "without". Do that, and the words; "without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof," simply mean what they say.
-
The vehement anti-BODers keep banging their heads against the tradition they seek to maintain. I, as many who recognize the teaching of BOD, have cited the Catechism of Trent where it talks about the possibility of justification for a catechumen who dies without receiving the fount which he desired. The CE says this of its composition:
The Reformers had not been slow in taking advantage of the situation; their popular tracts and catechisms were flooding every country and leading thousands of souls away from the Church. The Fathers of Trent, therefore, "wishing to apply a salutary remedy to this great and pernicious evil, and thinking that the definition of the principal Catholic doctrines was not enough for the purpose, resolved also to publish a formulary and method for teaching the rudiments of the faith, to be used by all legitimate pastors and teachers" (Cat. praef., vii). This resolution was taken in the eighteenth session (26 February, 1562) on the suggestion of St. Charles Borromeo; who was then giving full scope to his zeal for the reformation of the clergy. Pius IV entrusted the composition of the Catechism to four distinguished theologians: Archbishops Leonardo Marino of Lanciano and Muzio Calini of Zara, Egidio Foscarini, Bishop of Modena, and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican. Three cardinals were appointed to supervise the work. St. Charles Borromeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. Cardinal William Sirletus then gave it the final touches, and the famous Humanists, Julius Pogianus and Paulus Manutius, translated it into classical Latin. It was then published in Latin and Italian as "Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566" (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, "De Ref.", c. vii).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm
Now - I say this in response to Stubborn and others who say that the Catechism is not talking about a catechumen who dies before receiving baptism - the theologians who annotated John 3:5 in the first English translation of the Douay Rheims in 1582, roughly contemporaneous with the Catechism and the Council of Trent, said basically the same thing as the Catechism of Trent:
5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.
Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
This accords with what Mithrandylan said about baptism as an instrumental cause: an instrumental cause is a subordinate cause used by the principal agent (God here) to achieve a purpose. God loves to use instrumental causes like baptism, the sacraments, but, as the priest/theologians of the DR noted, He has not in every instance bound Himself and His justice to the object He indeed uses for His purposes. It is the grace of the Holy Ghost which inspires the sacrament that saves and the Church has taught that it is possible to receive that grace that justifies in some instances by faith and penance without actual receipt of the sacrament.
And in anticipation of those like Lad who try to paint me into some liberal corner of a "BODer," I will refer to a thread mentioned by Mithrandylan in this thread, where I state and argue:
But let me comment: if one understands predestination - God's willing and providing - being the infallible cause of - the salvation of His chosen elect, and understands the truism that God determines the means and the ends of everything He "simply" wills (St. Thomas, above), then the difficulties or problems of the "fairness" of God saving only those who are joined to the Catholic Church disappears: if He wills infallibly the salvation of all who are saved (and He does), it is obvious that He would also at the same time determine the how or the way He does it (i.e., do it in the manner He selected or wishes) - via faith in Christ, the Church, or baptism, etc.
One could no more object to His choice of how He saves than one can object to His choice of who is saved. The truth of one being established (God's choice of who is to be saved), their are no logical or legitimate grounds to justify an objection to the how, since both come down to His free determination and choice.
There is simply no distinction between the who and the how of election that legitimatizes an objection to the one rather than the other.
The election of the saved being a gratuitous act of God's predestination being a truth of Scripture and the Church's teaching, there is no ground for valid objection to God's conjoined free and gratuitous determination of the how or manner He does it.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/msg784430/#msg784430
And it has also been my position, and my argument in this thread, that the classical and ancient position of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, reflected also in the Haydock Bible annotations posted in this thread, on Predestination presents a seamless garment that flows without rent and explains the seeming "harshness" of the dogmas of No Salvation Outside the Church, no salvation without possession of the Catholic faith or the sacrament of baptism (or at least the explicit desire for it, and the actual receipt of the sacrament as to infants).
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/msg791027/#msg791027
The Satanic expansion of salvation to non-Catholics and non-Christians (the infernal campaign inaugurated in Genesis 3 transformed into an attack on God's plan of correction and redemption after the Fall, so that now the false counter Church that Bishop Sheen said would "ape" the true religion proclaims the false gospel that "all men" could possess immortal life and beatific bliss, becoming "as God") necessitated an attack on the Catholic dogma of the predestination of the saints in the Church and while holding the Catholic faith, lest one actually stumble upon the dogma (despite the silence that it is generally wrapped in to hide it) and realize its significance and implication regarding those twin necessities of being Catholic and possessing the Catholic faith, which then make absolute sense as the unique and only means of salvation employed by a God who sovereignly determines who and how men are saved.
. . .
And thus, so now the thinking goes in the Conciliar Church, members of various false Christian Sects, Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists (and on and on), can be saved even "in their false religions" by way of a "development" manifested by the Conciliar Church in its dropping of the "but not by their false religions" expression to which the expression "in their false religions" was previously joined by otherwise true and faithful pastors of the Church like Archbishop Lefebvre, a comforting or palliating tag that likely reflected an attempt to suppress the necessarily concomitant association of a derogation of those joint necessities previously held to by the Church, EENS and the necessity of the Catholic faith, an attempt that utterly failed to stem the rushing waters of their erosion unleashed by V2 and the Conciliar establishment.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/god's-salvific-will-to-save-'all-men'-and-the-death-of-unbaptized-infants/msg794272/#msg794272
I'm no "BODer" who is seeking to use BOD as a leverage to save non-Catholics or erode the doctrine of EENS.
According to my view of election and predestination, it would be perfectly consistent if all of those saved received water baptism: God sovereignly determines the end and the means. I would have no objection. NONE.
But the Church teaches the great doctrines of grace and justice and salvation "by the Spirit, and not the letter," and it has taught the possibility of regeneration/justification/salvation without the receipt of the sacrament. I have objected in the past as a former Feeneyite, and you could object, but the simple truth is it does, and that does not erode the necessity of baptism nor the truth of no salvation outside the Church, two other great truths taught by the Church.
-
This accords with what Mithrandylan said about baptism as an instrumental cause: an instrumental cause is a subordinate cause used by the principal agent (God here) to achieve a purpose. God loves to use instrumental causes like baptism, the sacraments, but, as the priest/theologians of the DR noted, He has not in every instance bound Himself and His justice to the object He indeed uses for His purposes. It is the grace of the Holy Ghost which inspires the sacrament that saves and the Church has taught that it is possible to receive that grace that justifies in some instances by faith and penance without actual receipt of the sacrament.
No, this is where you err.
Some Fathers, Theologians etc., have taught it, but the Church, in her official, de fide teachings, Trent in particular, do not teach such a thing, which is why no supporter of a BOD is able to produce said teaching of the Church and don't even make the attempt any more.
First the commentator says: "no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it." But then immediately contradicts both Scripture and himself by saying: "Though in this case...[God] doth accept them as baptized..." Like, where did he come up with that idea?
DR, even if you and what the commentator was saying were true, that; "though in this case... [God] doth accept them as baptized.." then Trent would be wrong because Trent says without the sacrament / desire, justification is not possible.
-
Catechism of Trent does not teach BoD. Nor did Trent. Period.
1) BoD was rejected by a majority of the Church Fathers (it would be unprecedented for the majority of Church Fathers to actually reject an actual "dogma")
2) BoD has never been proven by any theological argument.
Ergo, QED, BoD is nothing but pure speculation.
It's theological garbage, and it's the genesis of the modern crisis in the Church.
-
I'm no "BODer" who is seeking to use BOD as a leverage to save non-Catholics or erode the doctrine of EENS.
To bad that, for this "super dogma" that you morons cling to as if drooling at the mouth, the Church never defined it ... so anybody can do anything with it. You can't tell anyone, "this is how far you can go with BoD" or, "no, this is".
Never defined. Never taught. Mere opinion and theological speculation. Theological garbage. It's never been proven ben syllogistic argument but merely emoted into existence and then regurgitated by one author after another.
-
Catechism of Trent does not teach BoD. Nor did Trent. Period.
1) BoD was rejected by a majority of the Church Fathers (it would be unprecedented for the majority of Church Fathers to actually reject an actual "dogma")
2) BoD has never been proven by any theological argument.
Ergo, QED, BoD is nothing but pure speculation.
It's theological garbage, and it's the genesis of the modern crisis in the Church.
I disagree. St. Thomas believed in BOD, but there was no movement in the Church after St. Thomas to include within salvation non-Catholics, pagans or heretics as "within the Church" until the Jesuits of the 16th century and the discovery of the New World. Ironically, this timing coincided roughly with the Prot revolt. Now, the Prots get some things right, of course, the Trinity, Christ as Saviour, etc. They also get right the predestination of the elect; where they go wrong is some of them take that to the extreme of a "double predestination," i.e. that God wills the damnation of some, as if that is his desire, rather than His permission.
The solid Catholic doctrine of predestination - which would support the view that all of the elect come into the Catholic Church, as willed by God - was eroded by these same Jesuits (who were Molinists) and they used BOD as a loophole. In part because the Jesuit (Molinist) view served to highlight the distinction between the heretical Prots and the Catholic faith, it was tolerated by the Church.
St. Thomas, St. Augustine - they both accepted and acknowledge the doctrine of election of the saints by God's predestination. I would argue that it is the exaltation of a perverted sense of the free will of man - exemplified by Molinist doctrine - and the necessary and complimentary erosion of the Catholic doctrine of Predestination as taught by St. Augustine and St. Thomas, that is the culprit. BOD was merely an instrument (no pun intended).
-
To bad that, for this "super dogma" that you morons cling to as if drooling at the mouth, the Church never defined it ... so anybody can do anything with it. You can't tell anyone, "this is how far you can go with BoD" or, "no, this is".
Never defined. Never taught. Mere opinion and theological speculation. Theological garbage. It's never been proven ben syllogistic argument but merely emoted into existence and then regurgitated by one author after another.
There you go again, "morons." Didn't buy that mirror yet? Need a few bucks?
-
There you go again, "morons." Didn't buy that mirror yet? Need a few bucks?
The most convincing argument against EENS dogma is that people who believe in it are "uncharitable".
At least to most people it seems.
So you avoid the point that BoD isn't defined and everything is allowed except the necessity of the sacrament of baptism.
-
The most convincing argument against EENS dogma is that people who believe in it are "uncharitable".
At least to most people it seems.
So you avoid the point that BoD isn't defined and everything is allowed except the necessity of the sacrament of baptism.
Servus,
I've addressed this repeatedly, and I understand that you don't particularly follow my thought - why should you? Anyway, I'll dig up my response to this and post it here. In short, I believe the concept of a real possibility of justification by the Spirit without receipt of the sacrament in re is indeed "defined" by Trent as precisely that, i.e. a recognition of that real possibility, without a more elaborate definition of specifics, such as is addressed in the Catechism of Trent and, e.g., in the annotations to John 3:5 of the DR that I cited.
I do believe Trent taught that possibility, as did St. Alphonsus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Orestes Brownson, Fr. Michael Mueller, on and on and etc.
DR
-
I believe there is a "core concept" of BOD that is taught by the Council of Trent and by the Church:
Are you aware (anyone) of any theologians of any stature - well, I'm not aware of any theologians for that matter - holding that Trent didn't pronounce in Session VI, Chapter 4 that a desire for the sacrament can justify? Of course, many can be cited who did read Trent to say as much.
Since this thread was prompted by the thought of Brownson, I'll again quote from his definitive (for me) comments on the necessity of the Church for salvation, and by necessary implication on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism, by which one enters the Church:
Quote
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.
That right there is what I have described as the "core concept" of BOD: a recognition of the possibility of salvation by receipt of the sacrament "in voto et proxima dispositione." The Church has not elaborated on the how, and when, that possibility may become real, beyond saying it would if a catechumen was prevented from receiving the sacrament while having faith, repentance and preparing to receive it.
The failure or lack of elaboration on the concept no more betrays the concept as false than a vast amount of mystery regarding the Trinity, for example, renders the truth of God being triune false.
DR
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/orestes-brownson-on-theological-questions/msg846051/#msg846051
-
So, this is what "AS IT IS WRITTEN" means ...
.
Although I don't fully agree with the full implications you draw from your explanation of "as it is written," I agree with your understanding of what "as it is written" means. It is a reference, a citation, used to support the previous claim (that without water baptism or the desire for it, no man is justified).
-
I encourage everyone to read Decem Rationis' posts in here, as his prose demonstrates a lucid and familiar understanding of all the relevant theological material.
.
Regarding baptism as the instrumental cause of justification-- a description Trent gives us with no less authority than the claim of justification not being effected except through water baptism or a desire for it regardless of what you take that to mean-- we can turn to St. Thomas, whose coordination of Aristotelian metaphysics and Christian Tradition animated Trent's theological discourse*:
an efficient cause is twofold, principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of its form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its own heat makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause grace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature, according to 2 Peter 1:4: "He hath given us most great and precious promises; that we may be [Vulgate: 'you may be made'] partakers of the Divine Nature." But the instrumental cause works not by the power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is not like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman's mind. And it is thus that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for they are instituted by God to be employed for the purpose of conferring grace. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "All these things," viz. pertaining to the sacraments, "are done and pass away, but the power," viz. of God, "which works by them, remains ever." Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone works: wherefore it is written (Titus 3:5): "He saved us by the laver of regeneration."
.
(ST III, Q 62, a1 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4062.htm))
.
*In Aeterni Patris, Pope Leo XIII reports that St. Thomas's Summa was placed on Trent's altars alongside the Gospels and the decrees of the Popes as a source from which to "seek counsel, reason, and inspiration" (para 22).
.
As St. Pius X warned, those who do not learn from St. Thomas are incapable of even understanding the words used to propose dogmas. Disfamiliarity with Thomas makes Trent's designation of baptism as the "instrumental cause" just a colloquial expression. But familiarity with this jargon reveals an extraordinarily specific meaning, and at that a meaning incompatible with BoD denial. Baptism cannot be necessary in the way they contend and at the same time be an instrumental cause.
-
Regarding baptism as the instrumental cause of justification-- a description Trent gives us with no less authority than the claim of justification not being effected except through water baptism or a desire for it regardless of what you take that to mean-- we can turn to St. Thomas, whose coordination of Aristotelian metaphysics and Christian Tradition animated Trent's theological discourse*:
While I agree that "instrumental cause" is not ruled out even if the cause occurs through a reception in voto, it also doesn't prove your assertion that in bold there that it CAN happen other than by actual reception of the Sacrament. That's what is under dispute here.
This designation of "instrumental cause of justification" does not prove either side of the debate.
I've made the same argument against those who state that BoD inherently denies the "necessity" of Baptism, as the necessity could be preserved by requiring a reception in voto of the Sacrament.
So "necessity" and "instrumental cause" by themselves are neither here nor there, and prove neither side.
-
.
Although I don't fully agree with the full implications you draw from your explanation of "as it is written," I agree with your understanding of what "as it is written" means. It is a reference, a citation, used to support the previous claim (that without water baptism or the desire for it, no man is justified).
So, having read the entire Treatise on Justification, it very emphatically teaches that the Holy Spirit inspires all of the dispositions necessary for justification.
Even Catholic Encyclopedia defines votum as follows:
We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.
I absolutely despise this term "Baptism of Desire". IMO it's used deliberately to transform it into something vague that can be extended practically to the radishes in your garden.
So Trent explains repeatedly that the Holy Ghost inspires these dispositions for Baptism in the soul.
Then after all this we get to the infamous passage.
So let's say that we have a similar ambiguous passage. Assume that you don't know what baseball is.
"We can't play a game of baseball without a bat or a ball." By itself, without context or without prior knowledge of what baseball is, you can't tell whether this means you just need one or the other or you need both. But now let's expand the thought as follows:
"We can't play a game of baseball without a bat or a ball, since you need a bat and a ball to play a game of baseball." Disambiguated.
That's exactly what's happening in this passage in Trent.
Trent uses the very evocative term for the Sacrament, "laver" (lavacrum), which is evocative of water.
So it's making an analogy and applying the proof text.
"Justification cannot happen without the laver OR the votum, SINCE Our Lord taught that one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit."
Laver is to water what the votum is to the Holy Spirit. To interpret this passage the BoDer way, you'd have to read it this way --
"Justification can happen with either the laver or the votum, since Our Lord teaches that both the laver and the votum are required."
Also, the language is very clear. It does not say that justification CAN happen with just the votum along. It says that justification CANNOT happen WITHOUT the votum.
There are MULTIPLE other problems with the BoDer interpretation of this passage ...
1) interpreted as "either ... or", it's saying that the Sacrament (this section is about justification for adults) can justify WITHOUT the votum. That proposition was actually anathematized in the Canons of Trent.
2) interpreted the BoDer way, it's saying that justification can happen WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, which is heretical (condemned at Trent). "WITHOUT" is completely the wrong expression.
3) interpreted the BoDers way, saying that justification cannot happen without these two, this means that there's no such thing as BoB that does not reduce to a Baptism of Desire. So there are no "Three Baptisms" but, rather "Two" and saying "Three Baptisms" would be heretical.
Problems go on and on and on and on ...
St. Alphonsus held that BoD doesn't necessarily remit all the temporal punishment due to sin. But that contradicts Trent's teaching that initial justification removes all stain of and punishment due to sin (not just the guilt). Also, a Pope, in a very similar letter to the one St. Alphonsus cited as making BoD de fide declared that someone saved by BoD would enter heaven immediately and "without delay". So that would (using St. Alphonsus' own logic) render St. Alphonsus' theory of temporal punishment not remitted by BoD heretical.
It just doesn't stop with the confusion ... and that demonstrates as much as anything that the Church has not defined this matter. Just the fact that we're having this argument proves that the Church hasn't defined it.
-
While I agree that "instrumental cause" is not ruled out even if the cause occurs through a reception in voto, it also doesn't prove your assertion that in bold there that it CAN happen other than by actual reception of the Sacrament. That's what is under dispute here.
This designation of "instrumental cause of justification" does not prove either side of the debate.
I've made the same argument against those who state that BoD inherently denies the "necessity" of Baptism, as the necessity could be preserved by requiring a reception in voto of the Sacrament.
So "necessity" and "instrumental cause" by themselves are neither here nor there, and prove neither side.
.
Maybe I don't follow you. Baptism truly is the instrumental cause of justification, and we know this because Trent teaches so with the same authority it teaches no man can be justified except through/without baptism or a desire for it.
.
The nature of an instrumental cause is that something else can be substituted for it. That's what makes it an instrumental cause as opposed to a principal cause (instrumental and principal causes are two types of efficient causes-- see Aquinas's explanation above).
.
While the meaning of "baptism or a desire for it" might be arguable in a vacuum, the meaning of "instrumental cause" is not. I therefore think it quite apt, knowing baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, to understand "baptism or the desire for it" to mean that justification can be effected in a man who desires water baptism but who has not yet received it. This is consistent with it being an instrumental cause, whereas to maintain that no one can be justified without desiring to be baptized by water and then actually getting baptized by water is inconsistent with it being an instrumental cause.
.
-
.
Maybe I don't follow you. Baptism truly is the instrumental cause of justification, and we know this because Trent teaches so with the same authority it teaches no man can be justified except through/ without baptism or a desire for it.
.
The nature of an instrumental cause is that something else can be substituted for it. That's what makes it an instrumental cause as opposed to a principal cause (instrumental and principal causes are two types of efficient causes-- see Aquinas's explanation above).
.
While the meaning of "without baptism or a desire for it" might be arguable in a vacuum, the meaning of "instrumental cause" is not. I therefore think it quite apt, knowing baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, to understand "without baptism or the desire for it" to mean that justification cannot be effected in a man who desires water baptism but who has not yet received it. This is consistent with it being an instrumental cause, whereas to maintain that no one can be justified without desiring to be baptized by water and then actually getting baptized by water is inconsistent with it being an instrumental cause.
It helps when the terminology used is the same as that used in the Church's teachings - see bolded.
-
Note the contrary meaning Mith's post takes on when the teaching is misquoted as Mith (mistakenly?) did. Yet, correcting the quote according to the teaching by simply re-inserting the bolded words "without" and "cannot," we see within the Church's wording not only the unchangeability of it, but also the teaching's true meaning, which btw, Mith (underlined) expresses very clearly what the true teaching of the Church is.
"While the meaning of "without baptism or a desire for it" might be arguable in a vacuum, the meaning of "instrumental cause" is not. I therefore think it quite apt, knowing baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, to understand "without baptism or the desire for it" to mean that justification cannot be effected in a man who desires water baptism but who has not yet received it. This is consistent with it being an instrumental cause, whereas to maintain that no one can be justified without desiring to be baptized by water and then actually getting baptized by water is inconsistent with it being an instrumental cause."
-
Note the contrary meaning Mith's post takes on when the teaching is misquoted as Mith (mistakenly?) did. Yet, correcting the quote according to the teaching by simply re-inserting the bolded words "without" and "cannot," we see within the Church's wording not only the unchangeability of it, but also the teaching's true meaning, which btw, Mith (underlined) expresses very clearly what the true teaching of the Church is.
"While the meaning of "without baptism or a desire for it" might be arguable in a vacuum, the meaning of "instrumental cause" is not. I therefore think it quite apt, knowing baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, to understand "without baptism or the desire for it" to mean that justification cannot be effected in a man who desires water baptism but who has not yet received it. This is consistent with it being an instrumental cause, whereas to maintain that no one can be justified without desiring to be baptized by water and then actually getting baptized by water is inconsistent with it being an instrumental cause."
Stop being such a Freudian. Earlier in the thread Clemens Maria sourced an article arguing that the frequent translation we receive of "except through" is better translated as "without." I included both expressions to acknowledge this disagreement and not get bogged down in translational minutiae (which in my experience often ends discussions). Clearly I shouldn't have bothered with this courtesy, so for demonstrating that I thank you.
-
Stop being such a Freudian. Earlier in the thread Clemens Maria sourced an article arguing that the frequent translation we receive of "except through" is better translated as "without." I included both expressions to acknowledge this disagreement and not get bogged down in translational minutiae (which in my experience often ends discussions). Clearly I shouldn't have bothered with this courtesy, so for demonstrating that I thank you.
"Except through" is not better translated as "without." "Except through" "changes the meaning," (condemned at V1) and is exclusively the Fr. Cekada translation, this blatant mistranslation is found nowhere else except in his references and conveniently, only when he promoted a BOD.
Latin to English:
"...quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest; sicut scriptum est..."
"...and this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written..."
Even the google translation has it correct...
GOOGLE LATIN: sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest
GOOGLE TRANSLATION: without the bath of regeneration, or its wish, it [justification] cannot be done
As I already said and as you've demonstrated, the words "desire" or "vow" or "or" are important but are of no real consequence in understanding the Church's teaching, it is the words "without" and "cannot" that matter, these two words give contextual and apodictic confirmation to the teaching - which you changed as if they are some meaningless "translational minutiae" and as if that's enough to end the discussion. Double :facepalm:
-
Anyone claiming that sine doesn't mean without is just a plain liar.
https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=SINE100
http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/preposition:sine
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sine#:~:text=From%20Latin%20sine%20(%E2%80%9Cwithout%E2%80%9D).
-
Anyone claiming that sine doesn't mean without is just a plain liar.
https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=SINE100
http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/preposition:sine
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sine#:~:text=From%20Latin%20sine%20(%E2%80%9Cwithout%E2%80%9D).
"Except Through" is a deliberate mistranslation calculated to promote the notion that Trent taught BoD.
-
Anyone claiming that sine doesn't mean without is just a plain liar.
https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?lemma=SINE100
http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/preposition:sine
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sine#:~:text=From%20Latin%20sine%20(%E2%80%9Cwithout%E2%80%9D).
I'm not sure I entirely agree that the label of "liar" applies to anyone, perhaps we can say it applies to anyone remaining obstinate after it's clearly explained, but even then, I think it goes much deeper than that.
I liken this matter to the below snip on the EENS dogma from "Who Shall Ascend?"
"...He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mt. 11:15, 13:9, 43). Jesus was aware that in the crowds He addressed were some who would be saved. They would be saved because they would find faith in Him by the power of the Spirit, through Whom they would recognize the divine truth which He spoke. Moreover, again by the power of the Spirit within them, these would respond to the truth which they recognized with the assent of faith and the grasping of joyful love.
Others who listened to Christ heard exactly the same words, but did not have the "ears with which to hear;" that is, they would not accept the grace to believe the truth which Christ expounded; for these latter, it had neither comprehensibleness nor urgency nor appeal. It might be better to say its meaning was both comprehended and its demand recognized, [but] The reason Christ's words were not accepted by most of His hearers was that they were unwilling to submit to its demands..."
Reading meanings into words which the words they read do not say, while failing to advert to what the words do say, I liken to Fr. Cekada, who openly admitted that he was unwilling to accept EENS because he knew most people were unwilling to submit to it's demands and would be lost forever. BODers are unwilling to accept the truth for the same reason.