Author Topic: Baptism of Desire (Read 3361 times)

ServusInutilisDomini · « **Reply #15 on:** November 10, 2022, 11:06:51 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on November 10, 2022, 10:07:22 AM

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?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #16 on:** November 10, 2022, 11:10:47 AM »

Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on November 10, 2022, 10:58:56 AM

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?

ServusInutilisDomini · « **Reply #17 on:** November 10, 2022, 11:16:56 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on November 10, 2022, 11:10:47 AM

.
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.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #18 on:** November 10, 2022, 11:18:58 AM »

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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #19 on:** November 10, 2022, 11:30:21 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on November 10, 2022, 11:18:58 AM

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?

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #20 on:** November 10, 2022, 02:09:32 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on November 10, 2022, 10:07:22 AM

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.

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.

Quote

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:

Quote

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/

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #21 on:** November 10, 2022, 02:17:12 PM »

By the way, the Oxford latin scholar had no skin in the game. She was not on any side of this argument.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #22 on:** November 10, 2022, 02:32:49 PM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** November 10, 2022, 02:37:50 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 10, 2022, 02:17:12 PM

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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #24 on:** November 10, 2022, 03:53:25 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 10, 2022, 02:09:32 PM

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/

.
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.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #25 on:** November 10, 2022, 04:09:16 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on November 10, 2022, 11:30:21 AM

.
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".

Quote from: Clemens Maria on November 10, 2022, 02:32:49 PM

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.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #26 on:** November 10, 2022, 04:29:46 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on November 10, 2022, 04:09:16 PM

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.
.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #27 on:** November 10, 2022, 05:09:31 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on November 10, 2022, 04:29:46 PM

.
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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** November 10, 2022, 08:37:19 PM »

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** November 11, 2022, 05:03:33 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on November 10, 2022, 10:07:22 AM

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.

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire (Read 3361 times)

ServusInutilisDomini

Re: Baptism of Desire

Mithrandylan

Re: Baptism of Desire

ServusInutilisDomini

Re: Baptism of Desire

DigitalLogos

Re: Baptism of Desire

Mithrandylan

Re: Baptism of Desire

Clemens Maria

Re: Baptism of Desire

Clemens Maria

Re: Baptism of Desire

Clemens Maria

Re: Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire

Mithrandylan

Re: Baptism of Desire

DigitalLogos

Re: Baptism of Desire

Mithrandylan

Re: Baptism of Desire

DigitalLogos

Re: Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire

Stubborn

Re: Baptism of Desire