FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Another EENS, please be patient... - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Another EENS, please be patient... (/showthread.php?tid=44655)



Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-10-2011

(06-10-2011, 12:04 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Gregory (and Stubborn) I wrote this over some time and it does not address specific posts.

You want statements from infallible Catholic teaching.  I think that the Council of Trent clearly supports Baptism of Desire. Your arguments (Gregory) don't convince me, because of the very meaning of the phrase the Council uses.. 

"Council of Trent, Session VI Degree on Justification, Ch4" Wrote:In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5)

You are interpretting this as though OR really means AND.  The plain and obvious interpretation is that OR means OR - one thing is present, the other is present, or both are present.  If the word AND were intended, it would have been used.

I heard the argument that compared these words to the statement "You cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball".  Now if someone who knows about baseball hears this he may automatically assume that of course both are needed.  But the grammatically correct and clear statement would be "you cannot play baseball without a bat and a ball".  This statement would produce better results when speaking to a child who doesn't know baseball.  He would know to bring both a bat and a ball, not just one.

So the grammatically correct Council  WOULD HAVE USED "AND" IF THAT IS WHAT IT MEANT.  It said and meant "OR".

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that EXPLICITLY interprets Trent in this way::

THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (the Roman Catechism)

The Council of Trent is certainly an important part of the Church's magisterium.  But it is INTERPRETED by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.  Some people say that even the Catechism is infallible.  If you don't agree with this, you at least must agree that it extremely authoritative.

The Catechism teaches baptism of desire,very clearly (even if not by name),  when it speaks of the baptism of children and adults:

"Catechism of the Council of Trent" Wrote:On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; [b}should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.[/b]


ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)

Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of win” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon “Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato” and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
====

The fact that text of the Council immediately quotes John 3:5 means that the Council (and the Catechism and St. Alphonsus!) believe that these are Christ's words of truth, not that they imply that the necessity means God has promised water.  Clearly this is not what St. Alphonsus thinks!  I trust  his INTERPRETATION of infallible Church teaching, and the INTERPRETATION made by so many saints and Popes (and Canon Law).  Even when they are not personally infallible I can trust their INTERPRETATION better than YOURS or MINE They do not consist just of a group of modern theologians, or a group of heretical bishops, but a great number of holy and wise men over a long history..

Man uses the word "unless" and "necessary"  allowing for an deliberately unspoken exception.  We say "water is necessary for tomatoes to grow", and it IS truly necessary, yet God may provide a miraculous exception.   A mother may say "Unless you get in the car in 1 minute no dessert for you", and she is not lying or forgetful,  yet if the child twists his ankle, she makes an exception.  God allows men to "twist their ankle" on the way to obey a command, and does not count this a sin.  It doesn't matter that God has absolute power and can foresee everything, He still allows such impossibility, and can make an exception.  God is more merciful than a mother.



This.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-10-2011

@ Stubborn.  Please tell the following clerics and monks to abandon the good life and get to work and go on baptizing missions to the pagans, jews, and heathens. Thank you.

Vatican crackdown at Rome's Playboy Mansion-style monastery
Alert  Print  Post comment Retweet Facebook Lapdancing nuns, 'lifestyle irregularities' uncovered

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Bootnotes, 27th May 2011 12:14 GMT

A controversial monastery in Rome – the scene of performances by lap-dancing nuns and "lifestyles that were probably not in keeping with that of a monk" – has been closed down on the orders of the Pope.

The Santa Croce in Gerusalemme basilica, home to nuns and monks of the Cistercian order, is one of the oldest and most prestigious complexes of the Catholic Church and dates from the 4th century. It is thought to house important relics from the Holy Land. However in modern times it had been allowed to fall into disrepair.

That all changed some years ago when a new and flamboyant abbot, former Milan fashion designer Father Simone Fioraso, took charge. He renovated the buildings and opened a luxury hotel at the site, which reportedly became a popular haunt for celebrities and Italian aristocrats, and held high-profile events including regular concerts and a televised Bible-reading marathon.

A major attraction of the basilica was apparently the "holy dances" performed by the nun Sister Anna Nobili, a former lap-dancer, and other nuns taught by her. Nobili's routines reportedly featured her lying spread-eagled before an altar clutching a crucifix, or undulating passionately in the fashion of a pole dancer.

The saucy Sister has reportedly performed for many high-ranking church dignitaries including Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Vatican cultural department. Other patrons of Santa Croce have included Madonna, who prayed there in 2008.

The monks of Santa Croce have been in trouble with the Supreme Pontiff since 2009, when Father Fioraso was busted from his position as abbot (and presumably despatched to a hardship posting on a remote island off the Irish coast). Investigators from the Vatican's Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life moved in, and delivered their sealed report in March – one so sizzling that it will never be released to the public.

The Vatican has now confirmed that the monks and nuns will all be transferred to other posts and that Santa Croce will now operate solely as an ordinary church, not a monastery.

The enquiry "found evidence of liturgical and financial irregularities as well as lifestyles that were probably not in keeping with that of a monk," Father Ciro Benedettini told the Guardian. There's also BBC coverage here. ®




Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 06-10-2011

(06-10-2011, 12:04 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Gregory (and Stubborn) I wrote this over some time and it does not address specific posts.

You want statements from infallible Catholic teaching.  I think that the Council of Trent clearly supports Baptism of Desire. Your arguments (Gregory) don't convince me, because of the very meaning of the phrase the Council uses.. 

"Council of Trent, Session VI Degree on Justification, Ch4" Wrote:In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5)

You are interpretting this as though OR really means AND.  The plain and obvious interpretation is that OR means OR - one thing is present, the other is present, or both are present.  If the word AND were intended, it would have been used.


At the risk of being a broken record, I will say first that Trent says: CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. Yet folks still say that water is not necessary. They do precisely the thing that Trent explicitly anathematizes, namely, they wrest, to some sort of metaphor the necessity of water. If BOD is not "some sort of metaphor", than what is?   

Next, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus both contradict themselves - one place they say salvation is not achievable without true and natural water - in other places they say BOD/BOB suffices. As such, neither supplies absolute reliability on this issue at all.

St. Augustine retracted his teachings regarding BOD - in his book "Retractions" he lays out the necessity of water explicitly.

There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you. - Fr. Feeney








Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Stubborn - 06-10-2011

(06-10-2011, 12:53 AM)wulfrano Wrote: @ Stubborn.  Please tell the following clerics and monks to abandon the good life and get to work and go on baptizing missions to the pagans, jews, and heathens. Thank you.

Two points two consider:

1st, while going on missions to baptize pagans, natives, jews etc is always nice - though not the necessity it was back when the Apostles covered the whole earth preaching, baptizing etc, these proposed missionary folks need to worry about getting themselves and their own people taken care of *before* worrying about natives etc. in far off lands.

2nd, there is no universal error free definition of BOD whatsoever. As such, depending on which definition of BOD one chooses to believe, the natives etc in far off lands can be saved without the Catholic faith and certainly without being baptized - so long as they desire baptism before they die. So no need to go out and baptize them.




Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-10-2011

(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-10-2011, 12:04 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Gregory (and Stubborn) I wrote this over some time and it does not address specific posts.

You want statements from infallible Catholic teaching.  I think that the Council of Trent clearly supports Baptism of Desire. Your arguments (Gregory) don't convince me, because of the very meaning of the phrase the Council uses.. 

"Council of Trent, Session VI Degree on Justification, Ch4" Wrote:In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5)

You are interpretting this as though OR really means AND.  The plain and obvious interpretation is that OR means OR - one thing is present, the other is present, or both are present.  If the word AND were intended, it would have been used.


At the risk of being a broken record, I will say first that Trent says: CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. Yet folks still say that water is not necessary. They do precisely the thing that Trent explicitly anathematizes, namely, they wrest, to some sort of metaphor the necessity of water. If BOD is not "some sort of metaphor", than what is?   

Next, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus both contradict themselves - one place they say salvation is not achievable without true and natural water - in other places they say BOD/BOB suffices. As such, neither supplies absolute reliability on this issue at all.

St. Augustine retracted his teachings regarding BOD - in his book "Retractions" he lays out the necessity of water explicitly.

There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you. - Fr. Feeney

I must remind you that Feeney was excommunicated by the Holy Office (former Inquisition) under Pius XII.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-10-2011

(06-10-2011, 08:27 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(06-10-2011, 12:53 AM)wulfrano Wrote: @ Stubborn.  Please tell the following clerics and monks to abandon the good life and get to work and go on baptizing missions to the pagans, jews, and heathens. Thank you.

Two points two consider:

1st, while going on missions to baptize pagans, natives, jews etc is always nice - though not the necessity it was back when the Apostles covered the whole earth preaching, baptizing etc, these proposed missionary folks need to worry about getting themselves and their own people taken care of *before* worrying about natives etc. in far off lands.

2nd, there is no universal error free definition of BOD whatsoever. As such, depending on which definition of BOD one chooses to believe, the natives etc in far off lands can be saved without the Catholic faith and certainly without being baptized - so long as they desire baptism before they die. So no need to go out and baptize them.

I just think that the modern clergy should employ their free time baptizing heathens instead of going to nightclubs and massage parlors.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Doce Me - 06-10-2011

(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: At the risk of being a broken record,

You do sound like a broken record , or rather a record with skips, missing the points that I make - or are you going to address them later?
(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: I will say first that Trent says: CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. Yet folks still say that water is not necessary. They do precisely the thing that Trent explicitly anathematizes, namely, they wrest, to some sort of metaphor the necessity of water. If BOD is not "some sort of metaphor", than what is?   

OBVIOUSLY the Council of Trent says water is necessary for baptism, but it never says that not even God will make an exception, but rather promises to bring water Himself if it is impossible for man. The word NECESSITY without using the word exception can allow an exception if something is impossible FOR THE ONE COMMANDED.  You are trying to be very reverent in implying  that God was making an eternal covenant binding Himself to water (YES, BINDING - HE MUST BRING IT BECAUSE HE PROMISED IT).  But this is NOT what the Church teaches in Trent and through its interpreters. 

God can work any miracle - that is not the question!  But he often allows human impossibilities to stand. No one is getting away with anything and there is no metaphor here! God works what is greater than a miracle - justifying a man, because of the man's ardent desire for baptism by water. If water were not so important desire for it would do nothing.

(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Next, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus both contradict themselves - one place they say salvation is not achievable without true and natural water - in other places they say BOD/BOB suffices. As such, neither supplies absolute reliability on this issue at all.

St. Augustine retracted his teachings regarding BOD - in his book "Retractions" he lays out the necessity of water explicitly.

First, even if one or the ofher of these Saints at some point seemed to deny Baptism of Desire, they WERE NOT denying it just by saying that water is necessary! THAT IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE.

Second, if one said that God will ALWAYS bring water to a good catechumen before he dies, so that he clearly denied baptism of desire, THAT WOULD NOT DISPROVE WHAT SO MANY OTHERS HAVE TAUGHT.  (And I would need more proof)

Third,  I think it is rash to accuse St. Thomas or St. Augustine of contradicting themselves. (If you must, say "change their mind"; contradicting is a sign of dishonesty or stupidity)




Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-11-2011

(06-10-2011, 09:38 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: At the risk of being a broken record,

You do sound like a broken record , or rather a record with skips, missing the points that I make - or are you going to address them later?
(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: I will say first that Trent says: CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. Yet folks still say that water is not necessary. They do precisely the thing that Trent explicitly anathematizes, namely, they wrest, to some sort of metaphor the necessity of water. If BOD is not "some sort of metaphor", than what is?   

OBVIOUSLY the Council of Trent says water is necessary for baptism, but it never says that not even God will make an exception, but rather promises to bring water Himself if it is impossible for man. The word NECESSITY without using the word exception can allow an exception if something is impossible FOR THE ONE COMMANDED.  You are trying to be very reverent in implying  that God was making an eternal covenant binding Himself to water (YES, BINDING - HE MUST BRING IT BECAUSE HE PROMISED IT).  But this is NOT what the Church teaches in Trent and through its interpreters. 

God can work any miracle - that is not the question!  But he often allows human impossibilities to stand. No one is getting away with anything and there is no metaphor here! God works what is greater than a miracle - justifying a man, because of the man's ardent desire for baptism by water. If water were not so important desire for it would do nothing.

(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Next, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus both contradict themselves - one place they say salvation is not achievable without true and natural water - in other places they say BOD/BOB suffices. As such, neither supplies absolute reliability on this issue at all.

St. Augustine retracted his teachings regarding BOD - in his book "Retractions" he lays out the necessity of water explicitly.

First, even if one or the ofher of these Saints at some point seemed to deny Baptism of Desire, they WERE NOT denying it just by saying that water is necessary! THAT IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE.

Second, if one said that God will ALWAYS bring water to a good catechumen before he dies, so that he clearly denied baptism of desire, THAT WOULD NOT DISPROVE WHAT SO MANY OTHERS HAVE TAUGHT.  (And I would need more proof)

Third,  I think it is rash to accuse St. Thomas or St. Augustine of contradicting themselves. (If you must, say "change their mind"; contradicting is a sign of dishonesty or stupidity)

By all means, allow me: ;D

First, there are different english translations of the council of Trent, some more accurate than others. The translation of the word "sine" is always "Without", not "except through." The "except through" translation is a dynamic equivalency that has no place in the translation of an actual ecumenical council, since dogmas are made up of WORDS. THerefore we cannot play fast and loose with them.

Now, here is the line in question, not as I translated it, but from this site that translates it into english by "Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)"

19th century, fairly removed from the controversial mid 20th century.

Having established that, let's look at the phrase as translated in the 19th century:

"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."

My friend; context, context CONTEXT. Listen: The declaration that the translation from a state of injustice to justice cannot take place without baptism or its desire is made in the CONTEXT of the following line: "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Now, please tell me, if this supports baptism of desire, how it makes sense to first emphasize the necessity of baptism, the to say that you can actually be justified by desire, then to reemphasize the necessity of sacramental water baptism in our Lord's own words?

It doesn't, it is a glaring inconsistency, because the END emphasis is on sacramental water baptism, but the FIRST emphasis is on the inability to be justified WITHOUT Baptism or its desire. In order for this to make sense, as the author intended, we must take batism and its desire as a single unit. Similar to how we are saved through faith, yet er must be baptized. We are not saved through faith alone. So we are first moved by faith which leads us to desire baptism, whereby we actually are baptized. Now, can you be justified if you eliminate any portion of this process? NO!

If you have "Faith" in the revealed truth, but you do not desire baptism, you are a hypocrite and condemned.
If you have faith and "desire" baptism, but as fire insurance, simply to be sure of not going to hell, you commit sacrilege against the sacrament (by having a faulty disposition, and are condemned by the very waters that would save you.
If you have faith, which leads not simply to desire, but to the Latin Voto (a solemn vow and intention) and are baptized you will be saved.

Do you see how it is necessary to both desire baptism and receive it to be saved? In other words, you must be properly disposed to receive the sacrament. And the text itself says what is a proper disposition: a vowed intention to receive the sacrament (The word voto used here in latin indicates a vow, not simply desire, which is a completely different word.)

Can I back this interpretation up?

YES I CAN! From the SAME council in the SAME Session, just paragraphs later:

CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
"Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

So we see first that in order to be disposed TOWARD Justice, a man must first be moved to faith, and then to penitence which is necessary, then to intend to receive baptism. But is such a person justified? NO. THey are disposed, but not justified, for read what follows:

CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof. (apparently not anything that came before)

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by [b]Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[/b]

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified.

So clearly, according to Trent, a man cannot be saved without baptism or its desire. The words "except through" are a faulty translation based on faulty premises (reading into the text what is not there).

Also, Trent specifically says the desire to receive baptism is a disposition. It also clearly indicates that this disposition does not justify in itself, but only inasmuch as it leads unto the instrumental cause of our jsutification, which is baptism alone, since under the list of causes Trent makes no mention of any kind of "desire" or even "vow" being in any way the instrumental cause of any person's justification whatsoever.

What has happened is you have not read the council of Trent in accord with itself. Because of that, you are applying modern theology and terminology retroactively to ideas that are not extant in the council. As for the Catechism

A). It is not a magisterial document, but rather a document promulgated and port forth by the magisterium. THere is a difference. THe Catechism is subject to the magisterium, it is not the same as it. It is merely a compendium of magisterial sources, that is why it is called the Catechism of THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, not simply, the teaching Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. SUch a Catechism has never existed. THey are all specifically indicated as subject to the magisterium, and therefore exist apart from it.

B). THat passage of the Catechism is clear under the insttitution of Baptism who it applies to:

"The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

Oh, can we say it again? ALL who were to be saved. Not just the majority. Everyone who is going to be saved, according to the Catechism, is gonna have to be baptized.

"Oh, well that is only in one place." NOPE!

"Ministers In Case Of Necessity

"Those who may administer Baptism in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This office extends in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels and heretics, provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. These things were established by many decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils; and the holy Council of Trent denounces anathema against those who dare to say, that Baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism.

And here indeed let us admire the supreme goodness and wisdom of our Lord. Seeing the necessity of this Sacrament for all, He not only instituted water, than which nothing can be more common, as its matter, but also placed its administration within the power of all. In its administration, however, as we have already observed, all are not allowed to use the solemn ceremonies; not that rites and ceremonies are of higher dignity, but because they are less necessary than the Sacrament."

Again, under the extraordinary ministers of baptism, the Catechism Refers to it as NECESSARY for ALL.

Plus, you simply neglected the single most detrimental line to your entire argument:

Necessity of Baptism (These quotes are in order of appearance, so that what is referred to as already being explained is what has already been quoted)

"If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Again, the rigorist position is maintained: All gotsta be baptized or go to hell, even if their parents are infidels living apart from the faith! No warm and fuzzy sentimental theology HERE thankyouverymuch. ;)

The following quotes from the Catechism of Trent also ENTIRELY back up my point:

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

Again we read:

"Besides a wish to be baptised, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Saviour has said: He that believes and is baptised shall be saved."


SO: THe final recap: According to the Council and Catechism:

First, a desire to receive baptism is necessary to be saved. But this is only a first step, a disposition, and does not justify in itself. Second, the Person desiring must desire RIGHTLY and freely and with faith. Third, the Person intending to receive baptism must repent of his sinfulness. And even here, he is not yet justified. Finally, he is actually baptized, and it is here that he is finally made just, for there is one sole instrumental cause of our justification, sacramental water baptism.

In regards to what you quoted, it should be noted that even if the Catechism were not in error on this point, if a person died and went to heaven without baptism, but GOd chose to ressurect them, could they receive the eucharist or other sacraments? NO! THe obligation to receive baptism remains. But why is that, if the person was in heaven? Didn't they enter into the ultimate of what God desires? are they not worthy above all, having entered into the holy of holies? NO! For they are not made members of the church, and sacraments are reserved for the members of the Church alone. THerefore, it is entirely questionable whether such a one would go to heaven at all. It is a precarious position to say that member may be made a member of the church triumphant without ever having been a member of the church militant, when there are not three churches, but ONE mystical body of Christ that IS the Roman Catholic Church, as taught for millenia and recently reemphasized by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi. I contend simply with Fr. Feeney, I do not know this persons fate, but it is not heaven, since he is not a member of the church.

TO conceive of an invisible church apart from the organizational church is what the protestants teach, and it is a heresy; it is a variant of the "branch theory" put forth by Anglicanism.

I am STILL patiently waiting for any document of the ordinary magisterium that teaches or shows what is considered baptism of desire. SO far everything supports the rigorist interpretation, not the post-modern liberal theologians.

Also, if you take into account the fact that the position I maintain, which is the position is the COuncil and the ROman Catechism, then you will see that St. Alphonsus has innocently made a similar blunder as you. BOD is not condemned after all, but it is not greater than a theological opinon.

It certainly has no greater weight than Limbo which everyone seems to enjoy rejecting so much, even though Limbo is built on surer theological footing. But that's a whole other story.


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - wulfrano - 06-11-2011

(06-11-2011, 12:55 AM)Gregory I Wrote:
(06-10-2011, 09:38 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: At the risk of being a broken record,

You do sound like a broken record , or rather a record with skips, missing the points that I make - or are you going to address them later?
(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: I will say first that Trent says: CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema. Yet folks still say that water is not necessary. They do precisely the thing that Trent explicitly anathematizes, namely, they wrest, to some sort of metaphor the necessity of water. If BOD is not "some sort of metaphor", than what is?   

OBVIOUSLY the Council of Trent says water is necessary for baptism, but it never says that not even God will make an exception, but rather promises to bring water Himself if it is impossible for man. The word NECESSITY without using the word exception can allow an exception if something is impossible FOR THE ONE COMMANDED.  You are trying to be very reverent in implying  that God was making an eternal covenant binding Himself to water (YES, BINDING - HE MUST BRING IT BECAUSE HE PROMISED IT).  But this is NOT what the Church teaches in Trent and through its interpreters. 

God can work any miracle - that is not the question!  But he often allows human impossibilities to stand. No one is getting away with anything and there is no metaphor here! God works what is greater than a miracle - justifying a man, because of the man's ardent desire for baptism by water. If water were not so important desire for it would do nothing.

(06-10-2011, 07:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Next, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus both contradict themselves - one place they say salvation is not achievable without true and natural water - in other places they say BOD/BOB suffices. As such, neither supplies absolute reliability on this issue at all.

St. Augustine retracted his teachings regarding BOD - in his book "Retractions" he lays out the necessity of water explicitly.

First, even if one or the ofher of these Saints at some point seemed to deny Baptism of Desire, they WERE NOT denying it just by saying that water is necessary! THAT IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE.

Second, if one said that God will ALWAYS bring water to a good catechumen before he dies, so that he clearly denied baptism of desire, THAT WOULD NOT DISPROVE WHAT SO MANY OTHERS HAVE TAUGHT.  (And I would need more proof)

Third,  I think it is rash to accuse St. Thomas or St. Augustine of contradicting themselves. (If you must, say "change their mind"; contradicting is a sign of dishonesty or stupidity)

By all means, allow me: ;D

First, there are different english translations of the council of Trent, some more accurate than others. The translation of the word "sine" is always "Without", not "except through." The "except through" translation is a dynamic equivalency that has no place in the translation of an actual ecumenical council, since dogmas are made up of WORDS. THerefore we cannot play fast and loose with them.

Now, here is the line in question, not as I translated it, but from this site that translates it into english by "Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848)"

19th century, fairly removed from the controversial mid 20th century.

Having established that, let's look at the phrase as translated in the 19th century:

"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."

My friend; context, context CONTEXT. Listen: The declaration that the translation from a state of injustice to justice cannot take place without baptism or its desire is made in the CONTEXT of the following line: "as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Now, please tell me, if this supports baptism of desire, how it makes sense to first emphasize the necessity of baptism, the to say that you can actually be justified by desire, then to reemphasize the necessity of sacramental water baptism in our Lord's own words?

It doesn't, it is a glaring inconsistency, because the END emphasis is on sacramental water baptism, but the FIRST emphasis is on the inability to be justified WITHOUT Baptism or its desire. In order for this to make sense, as the author intended, we must take batism and its desire as a single unit. Similar to how we are saved through faith, yet er must be baptized. We are not saved through faith alone. So we are first moved by faith which leads us to desire baptism, whereby we actually are baptized. Now, can you be justified if you eliminate any portion of this process? NO!

If you have "Faith" in the revealed truth, but you do not desire baptism, you are a hypocrite and condemned.
If you have faith and "desire" baptism, but as fire insurance, simply to be sure of not going to hell, you commit sacrilege against the sacrament (by having a faulty disposition, and are condemned by the very waters that would save you.
If you have faith, which leads not simply to desire, but to the Latin Voto (a solemn vow and intention) and are baptized you will be saved.

Do you see how it is necessary to both desire baptism and receive it to be saved? In other words, you must be properly disposed to receive the sacrament. And the text itself says what is a proper disposition: a vowed intention to receive the sacrament (The word voto used here in latin indicates a vow, not simply desire, which is a completely different word.)

Can I back this interpretation up?

YES I CAN! From the SAME council in the SAME Session, just paragraphs later:

CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
"Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

So we see first that in order to be disposed TOWARD Justice, a man must first be moved to faith, and then to penitence which is necessary, then to intend to receive baptism. But is such a person justified? NO. THey are disposed, but not justified, for read what follows:

CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof. (apparently not anything that came before)

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by [b]Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[/b]

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified.

So clearly, according to Trent, a man cannot be saved without baptism or its desire. The words "except through" are a faulty translation based on faulty premises (reading into the text what is not there).

Also, Trent specifically says the desire to receive baptism is a disposition. It also clearly indicates that this disposition does not justify in itself, but only inasmuch as it leads unto the instrumental cause of our jsutification, which is baptism alone, since under the list of causes Trent makes no mention of any kind of "desire" or even "vow" being in any way the instrumental cause of any person's justification whatsoever.

What has happened is you have not read the council of Trent in accord with itself. Because of that, you are applying modern theology and terminology retroactively to ideas that are not extant in the council. As for the Catechism

A). It is not a magisterial document, but rather a document promulgated and port forth by the magisterium. THere is a difference. THe Catechism is subject to the magisterium, it is not the same as it. It is merely a compendium of magisterial sources, that is why it is called the Catechism of THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, not simply, the teaching Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. SUch a Catechism has never existed. THey are all specifically indicated as subject to the magisterium, and therefore exist apart from it.

B). THat passage of the Catechism is clear under the insttitution of Baptism who it applies to:

"The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

Oh, can we say it again? ALL who were to be saved. Not just the majority. Everyone who is going to be saved, according to the Catechism, is gonna have to be baptized.

"Oh, well that is only in one place." NOPE!

"Ministers In Case Of Necessity

"Those who may administer Baptism in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This office extends in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels and heretics, provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. These things were established by many decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils; and the holy Council of Trent denounces anathema against those who dare to say, that Baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism.

And here indeed let us admire the supreme goodness and wisdom of our Lord. Seeing the necessity of this Sacrament for all, He not only instituted water, than which nothing can be more common, as its matter, but also placed its administration within the power of all. In its administration, however, as we have already observed, all are not allowed to use the solemn ceremonies; not that rites and ceremonies are of higher dignity, but because they are less necessary than the Sacrament."

Again, under the extraordinary ministers of baptism, the Catechism Refers to it as NECESSARY for ALL.

Plus, you simply neglected the single most detrimental line to your entire argument:

Necessity of Baptism (These quotes are in order of appearance, so that what is referred to as already being explained is what has already been quoted)

"If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Again, the rigorist position is maintained: All gotsta be baptized or go to hell, even if their parents are infidels living apart from the faith! No warm and fuzzy sentimental theology HERE thankyouverymuch. ;)

The following quotes from the Catechism of Trent also ENTIRELY back up my point:

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

Again we read:

"Besides a wish to be baptised, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Saviour has said: He that believes and is baptised shall be saved."


SO: THe final recap: According to the Council and Catechism:

First, a desire to receive baptism is necessary to be saved. But this is only a first step, a disposition, and does not justify in itself. Second, the Person desiring must desire RIGHTLY and freely and with faith. Third, the Person intending to receive baptism must repent of his sinfulness. And even here, he is not yet justified. Finally, he is actually baptized, and it is here that he is finally made just, for there is one sole instrumental cause of our justification, sacramental water baptism.

In regards to what you quoted, it should be noted that even if the Catechism were not in error on this point, if a person died and went to heaven without baptism, but GOd chose to ressurect them, could they receive the eucharist or other sacraments? NO! THe obligation to receive baptism remains. But why is that, if the person was in heaven? Didn't they enter into the ultimate of what God desires? are they not worthy above all, having entered into the holy of holies? NO! For they are not made members of the church, and sacraments are reserved for the members of the Church alone. THerefore, it is entirely questionable whether such a one would go to heaven at all. I contend simply with Fr. Feeney, I do not know this persons fate, but it is not heaven, since he is not a member of the church.

TO conceive of an invisible church apart from the organizational church is what the protestants teach, and it is a heresy; it is a variant of the "branch theory" put forth by Anglicanism.

I am STILL patiently waiting for any document of the ordinary magisterium that teaches or shows what is considered baptism of desire. SO far everything supports the rigorist interpretation, not the post-modern liberal theologians.

So... we have to wait for some member of the clergy to come out at night from some bar and go baptize someone with water?


Re: Another EENS, please be patient... - Gregory I - 06-11-2011

Really, that's it? Seriously? Please read that Post one more time, It was directed toward Doce.

What are you talking about wulfrano? :fish: