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

Author Topic: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism  (Read 4479 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #160 on: March 21, 2026, 08:19:44 PM »
You bought into Stubborn's perverse reading of the Catechism of Trent? Of course the Council of Trent mentions BoD. Look at two roughly contemporaneous expressions of BoD by St. Robert Bellarmine in his catechism, the annotation of John 3:5 by the annotators of the Rheims New Testament, and compare that with the Catechism. Then consider what Florence had to say about the necessity of infant's being baptized promptly, with, finally, what Pius XII said. I'd cite all of the sources here, but I've been discussing this year for over 15 years here and I'm too lazy at the moment to reinvent this wheel:


Come to your senses, man. Can you really read those other sources above and not see how the Catechism of Trent is consistent with St. Robert, the Rheims NT, Pius XII, Florence on BoD availing for adults with the proper disposition.

DR

Hi DR,

What do you think is the significance of the Fathers at Trent ending the description of "the Justification of the impious" with "as it is written [John 3:5]"?

Quote
And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God


I don't believe I have seen this addressed from the BOD POV, and I would be interested in reading anyone's thoughts about it

Thank you 

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #161 on: March 21, 2026, 08:30:27 PM »
Hi DR,

What do you think is the significance of the Fathers at Trent ending the description of "the Justification of the impious" with "as it is written [John 3:5]"?


I don't believe I have seen this addressed from the BOD POV, and I would be interested in reading anyone's thoughts about it

Thank you

They were offering (or rather gave) the authoritative interpretation of John 3:5 in what they said before: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,as it is written: . . . "


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #162 on: Yesterday at 10:09:59 AM »
I will give you an example in order to illustrate.

If you are the father in a family and you have two sons, as a requirement for you to be saved, you also need to try your best to be a good father.

Meanwhile, someone who vowed to stay celibate and live as a monk does not have any duty to be a "good father".

If you still have difficulties understanding the meaning of my words, I shall try again. Is there anything you do not understand?
You make no sense at all.

The catechism I posted clearly teaches the recipient receives a BOD even when he has never heard of the existence of baptism.

The catechism plainly states that an act of "perfect love or contrition" substitutes for the sacrament and supplies a BOD without the recipient even knowing it. YOU wrongfully insist that the Church teaches that all three things - 1)faith, 2)works and 3)the sacrament or a desire for the sacrament, are required for a BOD. There is no teaching anywhere that even implies your 3 things.   

Obviously the BOD recipient does not have the faith if he never heard of the existence of baptism. So that means: 1) faith, 2) the sacrament or a desire for the sacrament, and 3) works are *not* a requirement of a BOD according to the catechism. Not only is this what the catechism teaches, this is also the common understanding of a BOD.

Offline OABrownson1876

  • Supporter
Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #163 on: Yesterday at 04:56:03 PM »
You, as often is the case, are wrong.

Even a pagan is capable of an act of contrition. It does not require knowledge of Revelation to know that murder is wrong or that incest is wrong, since those come from the natural law.

Aristotle , despite living in pagan Ancient Greece, was able to prove God's existence (the concept of a unique God above the fake pagan gods was not obvious) through pure reason. Of course, most people do not have the intellect necessary to do so, but it shows that God's existence itself does not require someone to know about the gospels at all.

Likewise, many sins can be proven to be sins simply through the use of reason itself. Any woman capable of motherly love would feel that abortion is wrong, because this is what normal humans instinctively know. Only someone who has been deeply perverted by a degenerate society could fool themselves to think otherwise. Anyone who commit an unnatural act like killing their own child, it doesn't matter if they know about the gospels or not, they would be guilty in the eyes of God.

However, how would someone know about baptism without Revelation? That is impossible.

You do not even understand the hierarchy between the knowledge a human can access through reason, and the knowledge given to a human by God through the theological virtue of faith.

Honestly, the fact you have the audacity to think you can teach others about anything regarding the Catholic faith is astounding.

I recommend studying the Thomistic distinction between natural law and positive divine law before continuing this discussion.

There is another important factor to take into account.

The gospels truly are excellent, divine news. Why do you think that is the case?
It was sufficient for Aristotle to follow the Ten Commandments in order to save his soul.  There is some disagreement among the theologians as to whether Aristotle actually had to convert to Judaism and receive circuмcision.  It is commonly understood that following the Ten Commandments was sufficient under the Old Law.

But one is not able to follow the Ten Commandments under the New Law by his natural reason, which is to say, by following the natural law. You must become a Catholic if you wish to follow the Ten Commandments; this is the point which we are trying to drive into your hardened head.  The quote by Fr. Feeney is very sound.  Fr. is simply saying that if a desire for Baptism cannot get me into the Church Militant, then how is the same desire going to get me into the Church Triumphant? 



Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism
« Reply #164 on: Today at 05:54:12 AM »
It was sufficient for Aristotle to follow the Ten Commandments in order to save his soul.  There is some disagreement among the theologians as to whether Aristotle actually had to convert to Judaism and receive circuмcision.  It is commonly understood that following the Ten Commandments was sufficient under the Old Law.

But one is not able to follow the Ten Commandments under the New Law by his natural reason, which is to say, by following the natural law. You must become a Catholic if you wish to follow the Ten Commandments; this is the point which we are trying to drive into your hardened head.  The quote by Fr. Feeney is very sound.  Fr. is simply saying that if a desire for Baptism cannot get me into the Church Militant, then how is the same desire going to get me into the Church Triumphant?
"Baptism of desire" is something that you could only receive just before the moment of your death. Fr Feeney is confusing two different things : desiring baptism (which in itself is nothing but a state of the mind), and baptism of desire which is a sacrament that requires the mental state of desiring baptism. 

Baptism of desire only happens before the death of a person who desired baptism and who did not receive it from any other human. The angels of God baptize the person invisibly.

As for accusing me of having a hardened head, I will forgive the idiocy of your words, since you are obviously unable to understand how hypocritical you words are.