Poll: Baptizing children without without their parent's permission is
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
15
0%
0 0%
14
0%
0 0%
12
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Baptizing children without without their parent's permission?
(11-17-2011, 04:03 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: I disagree because there have been multiple ex cathedra pronouncements that state things contrary to BoD.

What about this one from the Chair (via Cath. Ency.):

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. 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.
Reply
Did you read the part about "water"?
Reply
(11-17-2011, 04:11 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: Did you read the part about "water"?

without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto)
Reply
(11-17-2011, 04:13 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 04:11 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: Did you read the part about "water"?

without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto)

Before I answer that, let me point out that I just realize that you quoted a fallible encyclopedia. Please only provide the straight text.
Reply
(11-17-2011, 04:13 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 04:11 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: Did you read the part about "water"?

without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto)


Quote:SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT



OBJECTION-  In Session 6, Chapter 4 of its decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it!  So there!



ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved.  It would mean that it would be heresy to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism.  But 99% of the people who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved!  They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t desire water baptism.  Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching.  Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of most baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in heresy for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.]



    That being noted, this passage of the Council of Trent does not teach that Justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.  It says that justification in the impious CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it.  This is totally different from the idea that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.



Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested 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, once 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).”[cclxxvii]



    First off, the reader should note that this crucial passage from Trent has been horribly mistranslated in the popular English version of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is cited above.



    The critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” has been mistranslated to read: “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…”  This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) – which is found in the original Latin[cclxxviii] – to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire.  This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately), including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI.  That being mentioned, I will proceed to discuss what the council actually says here.



    Looking at a correct translation, which is found in many books, the reader also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism.  There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies.  The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this.  That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.



Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 33: “Fr. Feeney’s greatest argument was that Our Lord’s words, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) mean the absolute necessity of baptism of water with no exception whatsoever… The great question is, then, how did the Church explain these words of Our Lord?”



    Fr. Laisney, a fierce baptism of desire advocate, is admitting here that John 3:5 cannot be understood as it is written if baptism of desire is true.  He therefore holds that the true understanding of John 3:5 is that it does not apply literally to all men; that is, John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written.  But how does the Catholic Church understand these words?  What does the passage in Trent that we just discussed say:  It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”



    But what about the claim of the baptism of desire people: that the use of the word “or” (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it.  A careful look at the correct translation of this passage shows this claim to be false.  Suppose I said, “This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one.”  Does this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower?  No it doesn’t.  It means that both (water and desire) are necessary.



    Or suppose I said, “There cannot be a wedding without a bride or a groom.”  Does this mean that you can have a wedding with a groom and not a bride?  Of course not.  It means that both are necessary for the wedding.  One could give hundreds of other examples.  Likewise, the passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT water or desire; in other words, both are necessary.  It does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!



AUT (OR) USED TO MEAN “AND” IN THE CONTEXT OF COUNCILS



    In fact, the Latin word aut (“or”) is used in a similar way in other passages in the Council of Trent and other councils.  In the famous Bull Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence, we find the Latin word aut (“or”) used in a context which definitely renders it meaning “and.”



Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[cclxxix]



    Here we see the Council of Florence using the word “or” (aut) to have a meaning that is equivalent to “and.”  The council declares that not only pagans, but also Jews or (aut) heretics and schismatics cannot be saved.  Does this mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved?  Of course not.  It clearly means that none of the Jews and none of the heretics can be saved.  Thus, this is an example of a context in which the Latin word aut (or) does have a meaning that is clearly “and.”  This example absolutely proves that the Latin word aut can be, and has been, used in solemn magisterial pronouncements in the fashion we are saying it has been used in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent.



    In the introduction to the decree on Justification, the Council of Trent strictly forbids anyone to “believe, preach or teach” (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in the decree on Justification.



Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.”[cclxxx]



    Does “or” (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the council’s decree on Justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it?  No, obviously “or” (aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above “or” means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire.  Another example of the use of aut to mean “and” (or “both”) in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).



Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church.”[cclxxxi]



    Does aut in this declaration mean that the council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed?  No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden.  This is another example of how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning “and” or “both.” And these examples, when we consider the wording of the passage, refute the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire.

   

    But why does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary for Justification?  In the past we did not answer this question as well as we could have, because we thought that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 was distinguishing between adults and infants.  But further study of the passage reveals that in this chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the iustificationis impii[cclxxxii] – the justification of the impious (see quote above).  The impii (“impious”) does not refer to infants – who are incapable of committing actual sins (Trent, Sess. V, Denz. 791).  The word “impii” in Latin is actually a very strong word, according to a Latin scholar I consulted, and he agreed that it is too strong to describe an infant in original sin only.  It is sometimes translated as “wicked” or “sinner.”  Therefore, in this chapter, Trent is dealing with those above the age of reason who have committed actual sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for Justification.  In fact, the next few chapters of Trent on Justification (Chaps. 5-7) are all about adult Justification, further demonstrating that the Justification of adult sinners is the context, especially when the word impii is considered.  That is why the chapter declares that Justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it (both are necessary).



Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, p. 180: “INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…”[cclxxxiii]



        AN INTERESTING E-MAIL REGARDING THIS PASSAGE OF TRENT



    Interestingly, I happened to e-mail a question about this passage from the Council of Trent and its use of the word “or” (aut) to a Latin scholar from England, just to get the person’s thoughts.  I do not even know this person whom I e-mailed, and I don’t think she is even a Catholic.  She is a Latin scholar from Oxford Latin and I believe she answered honestly and impartially.  Her response is very interesting and very important, especially for those people who are convinced that the Council of Trent taught “baptism of desire.”  I wrote to her as follows:



“The passage in Latin is this: ‘quae quidem translatio ... sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest...’



“It is translated: ‘This transition... cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.’


”This literally says that the transition cannot happen without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it (meaning you must have both).  It does not say that it can take place with either one, don't you agree?  Is it not equivalent to my saying: This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one (meaning both are necessary); and is it not equivalent to saying: this article cannot be written without pen or pad (meaning both are necessary)?  You can use aut in this way in Latin, can you not?

”Any thoughts you have I would be very interested in.  Thank you.”



And she responded on Dec. 1, 2003 as follows:



“This is not easy! It is possible to make sense of it in both ways, with aut as 'or' and as 'and'.

“Aut as 'or' is more common, but here the interpretation depends on whether you think that the desire for baptism is enough on its own or whether the phrase signifies that you need the desire as well as the sacrament itself.
I'll leave it to you to decide!
Best wishes,
Carolinne White
OXFORD LATIN”



    Ms. White’s statement is very important and very interesting in that it shows that in her professional opinion as a Latin scholar, the passage using “or” (aut) can definitely be read as “and,” something many baptism of desire advocates absolutely reject as impossible!  She further admits that the interpretation depends upon whether one believes that the desire for baptism is enough – I believe a very honest statement on her part!  And she said this without my giving her the rest of the context; namely, where the Council of Trent declares, immediately after using the words “or the desire for it,” that John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written.



Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “[Justification]… 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).”[cclxxxiv]



    The point is, therefore, that, at the very least, all baptism of desire advocates must admit that this passage can be read both ways, and therefore that the understanding depends upon whether one believes that the desire for baptism is enough or not.  But if a baptism of desire advocate admits (as he must in honesty) that this passage may not teach baptism of desire, then he is admitting that the understanding of it must be garnered not only from the immediate context (which affirms John 3:5 as it is written and therefore excludes baptism of desire), but also from all of the other statements on Baptism and Justification in Trent.  And what do all of the other passages in Trent say on the necessity of Baptism?  Do they teach an understanding open to baptism of desire, or do they exclude any salvation without water baptism?  The answer is undeniable.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[cclxxxv]



Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”[cclxxxvi]



Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”[cclxxxvii]



      The interpretation of “or” in Sess. 6., Chap. 4 as “and” is not only possible (as Ms. White admits), but it is perfectly compatible with all of these infallible definitions, while the interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is incompatible with all of these definitions, not to mention (most importantly) the words “as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” which come immediately after “or a desire for it” and in the same sentence.



    The interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is also incompatible with the teaching of the Council of Florence on John 3:5, and there cannot exist disharmony between dogmatic councils.



Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].  The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”[cclxxxviii]



    The interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is also incompatible with the Council of Trent’s extensive definition just three chapters later on the causes of Justification.  Just three chapters later, the council lists four causes for Justification in the impious.



Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…”[cclxxxix]



      In listing all of the causes of Justification, why didn’t the Council mention the possibility of “baptism of desire”?  It had ample opportunity to do so, just as it clearly taught no less than three times that the graces of the Sacrament of Penance can be attained by the desire for that sacrament (Sess. 14, Chap. 4; and twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14).  But “baptism of desire” is mentioned nowhere, simply because it is not true.  And it is further interesting to consider that the word “desire” shows up not in Chapter 7 on the Causes of Justification, but in Chapter 4 where the council is talking about what cannot be missing in the Justification of the impious (namely, neither water nor desire can be missing in the justification of the impious).

   

    But some will say: “I see your point and I cannot deny it, but why didn’t the passage use the word ‘and’ instead of ‘or’; it would have been clearer then?”  This question is best answered by considering a number of things:



      First, it must be remembered that the passage describes what Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT (i.e., what cannot be missing in Justification); it does not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire.



    Second, the council didn’t have to use “and” because “or” can mean “and” in the context of words given in the passage, as shown already.



    Third, those who ask this question should consider another, namely: why in the world, if baptism of desire is true and was the teaching of Trent, didn’t the Council say anywhere (when it had so many opportunities to do so) that one can be justified without the sacrament or before the sacrament is received just as it clearly and repeatedly did in regard to the Sacrament of Penance?  This amazing omission (obviously because the Holy Ghost didn’t allow the Council to teach baptism of desire in its many statements on the absolute necessity of baptism) simply confirms the points that I’ve made above, because if the passage meant baptism of desire it would have said so.



    Fourth, the above question is best answered by a parallel example: In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.



    So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.



1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”



    God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.



      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”[ccxc]



    Interesting in this regard is the fact that numerous popes point out that in the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, the fathers at Chalcedon drew up a canon that elevated the status of the Bishop of Constantinople.  The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, therefore, intended to elevate the status of the See of Constantinople in drawing up Canon 28.  But the canon was rejected by Pope Leo the Great in his confirmation of the acts of Chalcedon, and therefore was considered worthless.



Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless.”[ccxci]   



    This shows that the intention or thoughts of the fathers at a general council mean nothing – they are worthless.  All that matters is what the Church actually declares.  Therefore, the fact that some of the council fathers at Trent – and even eminent and sainted theologians after Trent – thought the aforementioned passage of Trent taught baptism of desire means nothing; for the fathers at Chalcedon also thought the council was elevating the status of Constantinople, when it didn’t; and some of the fathers at Constantinople probably thought that the council was denying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, when it didn’t.  The bottom-line is that only those things that are actually declared by the councils and finally approved matter – nothing else.  And the aforementioned passage of Trent does not teach baptism of desire; it does not teach that desire justifies without baptism; and it does not contain error.



    The fact is that God made sure that the words “as it is written” were included in that very sentence to ensure that the council was not teaching baptism of desire by its wording in that passage.  The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  And if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est)!  But this is absurd, of course.  Those who obstinately insist that this passage teaches baptism of desire are simply wrong and are contradicting the very words given in the passage about John 3:5.  The inclusion of “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)” shows the perfect harmony of that passage in Trent with all of the other passages in Trent and other councils which affirm the absolute necessity of water baptism with no exceptions. 

tl'dr

"Or" means "and".
Reply
(11-17-2011, 04:15 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: Before I answer that, let me point out that I just realize that you quoted a fallible encyclopedia. Please only provide the straight text.

Session Seven

Canon IV.—Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novæ legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci; licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: anathema sit.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Reply
(11-17-2011, 04:27 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [quote='Servire Deo' pid='921554' dateline='1321560949']
Before I answer that, let me point out that I just realize that you quoted a fallible encyclopedia. Please only provide the straight text.

Session Seven

Canon IV.—Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novæ legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci; licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: anathema sit.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
[/quo

"Aut" means "and". If you had read my response you'd know that.
Reply
(11-17-2011, 04:28 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: "Aut" means "and". If you had read my response you'd know that.

Terrible argument. That would disqualify all infants who are baptized because they have no desire for it, whether human, or perfect charity in the sense of an act of an adult will.
Reply
"Aut" means "or", not "and."  Clearly, baptism of desire is part of the teaching of the Church.
Reply
From Wiktionary:

aut
or

Marcus videbit ludos aut dormiet. - Marcus will watch the games or sleep.
Aut caesar, aut nihil - either caesar or nothing(figuratively all or nothing)

Usage notes
This word is used in pairs (aut...aut) to mean "either....or"
Unlike vel, this word implies an exclusive "or" i.e. one option or the other, but not both.
(see smiliar distinction in Polish: "albo" and "lub")
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)