holy Trent infallibly taught that Justification IS Grace by which alone is Salvation.
#31

I would like to comment here, as it relates to these canons' declaration of water's necessity for baptism, on an alternate interpretation that I believe some Catholics maintain.

 

According to those who maintain Fr. Feeney's theology, "Baptism is necessary for salvation," "True and natural water is necessary for Baptism," therefore, "True and natural water is necessary for salvation."

 

Allow me, if you will, to play devil's advocate - something I usually refrain from doing - as I try to expose a loop hole some have perceived in these canons that allows for the existence of BOD and BOB and shows that the second premise of this proof: "True and natural water is necessary for Baptism," is not necessarily true.

 

Canon 2 does not say simply:

 

"True and natural water is necessary for Baptism,"

 

 

Canon 2 says:

 

Quote: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

 

...which adds an additional qualifier to this premise.

 

This argument is difficult to explain because trying to show discrepancies in the various ways in which words are interpreted is never easy, but let me try to describe the premise progressively. This canon includes two qualifiers bound by conjunctive language: "and". The perceived loophole is this:

 

Quote: Can. 2.

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism [alone, this statement, coupled with "let him be anathema", would refute any notion of BOD, but the statement then continues with…] and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema [which could imply that this is not refuting the notion of BOD, but rather expelling the heretical belief that baptism is nothing but a symbol of cleansing and thus does not actually provide grace or remit sin.]

 

To further expound on this premise, let me stress the importance of the words: “and thus” – which could be interpreted as, ‘and in so doing’. In this case, this canon is not saying simply that baptism of water is necessary for salvation, but rather condemning the notion that baptism is nothing more than a symbol. 

 

I don’t think people mean to pervert the words of Trent, but read the canon with the word “because” in place of the conjunctional phrase “and thus” (which could be substituted with “and in so doing”. For the word “because” is applied to further describe or expound upon a premise: “Don’t touch that because I said so.” Thus, we have an imperative statement and then the answer to a preconceived question: “Why can’t I touch that,” “Because I said so”). As it relates to this discussion, the words and thus have been interpreted as because in order to further expound upon Trent’s abrogation of the notion that baptism is nothing more than a ritualistic symbol.

 

Quote: Can. 2.

 

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism because [he] twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

 

The law of conjunction means that the premise is only true so long as all elements apply. In other words, something is only true if both this plus that are true. If only one applies, then the premise doesn’t relate. In other words, this is true only if that is true also. In this case, we have:

 

Quote: If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus [in so doing] twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ [thus denying that baptism of water provides grace and remits sin]: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” let him be anathema.

 

Those who hold to this view testify that Trent was saying: If one says that water is not necessary because (“and in so doing”) he believes that baptism is nothing more than a metaphor, let him be anathema.

 

So these Catholics believe that Trent is not specifically saying that water is necessary for baptism in all situations because it doesn’t say: “If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism…let him be anathema,” and then stops there. It adds one additional qualifier to this decree by saying “and thus (and in so doing twists / because he has twisted) twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ…, let him be anathema.

 

Canon 5 says:

 

Quote: If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

 

Proponents of BOD and BOB do not claim that baptism is optional, nor do they say that it is not necessary for salvation. They believe that BOD and BOB are valid forms of baptism and so they are included in this canon. To further their reasoning, if this canon had included Can. 2's inclusion of “true and natural water”, then there could be no contention because Canon 5 would then read as such:

 

Quote: If anyone says that baptism [of true and natural water] ... is ... not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

 

But because it does not say this, some argue that this proves nothing concerning the necessity for BOW.

 

Sorry that was so confusing, but I hope I got the point across. This is why wording is so important because many things are read differently by different people.

 

Edited to add: Sorry didi, I hope this didn't make you mad. I'm just showing the approach others have taken. They have simply considered the second part as a description of the first part and come to this conclusion: "Water is more than just a metaphor for cleansing - it actually provides the grace to do it." Or rather, "Water provides the grace (through God)." In other words, Trent wasn't excluding baptism of desire and of blood; Trent was declaring that water does more than just evoke sentiment - it actually summons God's grace.

 

Reply
#32
Your suggestion is an interesting one, but meets two insuperable objections.


The first is that the words translated by "and thus", atque ideo ("and for that reason/on that account/therefore") actually imply the inverse causal relation, such that the second clause is introduced as a consequence of the first, and not vice versa; that is to say, that the wresting to some sort of metaphor of the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the result of the denial of the necessity for baptism of true and natural water, and not the cause thereof.


The second is that the heretics who reduce baptism to a ritualistic symbol do not deny that water is of necessity for it, but that baptism itself is necessary for salvation, wherefore they are not concerned by canon II but by canon V.


The syllogism therefore stands.

Reply
#33
Quote:
Your suggestion is an interesting one, but meets two insuperable objections.

 

The first is that the words translated by "and thus", atque ideo ("and for that reason/on that account/therefore") actually imply the inverse causal relation, such that the second clause is introduced as a consequence of the first, and not vice versa; that is to say, that the wresting to some sort of metaphor of the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the result of the denial of the necessity for baptism of true and natural water, and not the cause thereof.


The second is that the heretics who reduce baptism to a ritualistic symbol do not deny that water is of necessity for it, but that baptism itself is necessary for salvation, wherefore they are not concerned by canon II but by canon V.


The syllogism therefore stands.


Ah, I see. I can see how, without the considerations you set forth, this could be easily misinterpreted, but that makes sense.

Reply
#34
didishroom Wrote:I find this interpritation of John to be erronious. It only seems to support  BOD and BOB if you're looking for it. Nowhere in that passage does it directly refer to baptism, and even if it did, it only affirms, if anything, what real baptism is.
Then logically you must say that St. Alphonsus was a heretic because he said that they were de fide in his time and used that verse from Sacred Writ to back them up. You are saying a Saint and Doctor of the Church and founder of a great and holy religious Order is a heretic who denied a defined sacred dogma (of Trent) after the fact. Do you not see that it what you are forced to believe by saying that Trent made your interpretation of her statements a dogma?

Quote:Sacramental baptism is, as Jesus said, of "water and the Spirit." St. Paul says when we are baptized we are baptized with Christ's death and resurrection. At the Cross, water and blood flowed from Jesus' side. And the Fathers have testified this event to be of the pouring of the Spirit. When we are sacramentally baptized we receive water, the Spirit and the blood.
How do with receive blood? Infants don't receive any real blood except maybe some Easterns who are given Holy Commmunion with their Baptism. We don't really receive real water either but are born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Quote:Just as the Trinity cannot be seperated so too can neither of these aspects of baptism, which is why I cannot hold that we can have desire for baptism or martyrdom in place of water. If we receive one we receive all."What God has joined together let no one put asunder."
The Most Blessed Trinity's Divine Essense or Nature cannot be separated because God is One Being. We believe in one God. But the Divine Persons are really distinct from each Other, As the Athanasian Creed professes "The Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Ghost", so likewise, the three ways though one Baptism are three distinct ways to receive that one Baptism. Hence "Baptism by the Water is not Baptism by Blood, nor is Baptism by Blood Baptism by the Spirit". The Bible also says that we will be baptized in fire: St. John the Baptist says, (Matthew 3:11) "I indeed baptize you in the water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire". Now are Catholics baptized in fire? The Scriptures are not always literal or absolute, didi. For instance our Lord also said, (John 6: 54) Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you". Does that mean Catholics who don't ever receive Holy Communion shalt not have any life in them? And note how our Lord uses the commanding words of "Amen Amen I say to thee" when He commands baptism (John 3:5) and here's another Divine statement: (John 5:24) Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life.
You are going by the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is the salvation of every single man though. I say if God can bring water to have a man receive the Graces of Baptism then why can He not also give those Graces without water. As to your interpretation of Trent's infallible statements, I say with St. Peter: The Councils  "speaking....of these things, in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the...Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
Reply
#35
INPEFESS Wrote:I would like to comment here, as it relates to these canons' declaration of water's necessity for baptism, on an alternate interpretation that I believe some Catholics maintain.......................................But because it does not say this, some argue that this proves nothing concerning the necessity for BOW.
Exactly, could not have put it better myself. The Council of Trent was a precise Council, the Fathers knew what they wanted to say and choose their words very carefully, they were Scholastics after all.
Reply
#36
Quote:
Exactly, could not have put it better myself. The Council of Trent was a precise Council, the Fathers knew what they wanted to say and choose their words very carefully, they were Scholastics after all.

Well, it is interesting to note that neither canon specifically says: "If anyone says that water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema." Those that hold to that conclusion obtain it by combining 2 with 5, in sequence. The first canon defines what baptism is, the second defines what baptism does. But the first canon adds the qualifer, "and thus twists into a metaphor...", while the second does not say "If anyone says baptism [no mention of water] is not necesssary for salvation..."

But as veritatem dilexisti pointed out, the canon uses the latin word "ideo" to connect both qualifiers. You don't have to be a Latin major to know that the word "ideo" means something similar to "therefore". Consider the Confiteor: "Ideo precor Beatum Mariam semper Virginem..." - which translated means: "Therefore, I beseech Blessed Mary ever Virgin..." ect. etc.

I didn't realize this was the language used. The translation "and thus" seems to add an additional qualifier to the canon which could exempt it from the specific application of baptism with water, but the usage of the word "ideo (therefore)" indicates that denial of the necessity of water for baptism therefore turns the words of Christ into a metaphor - almost as if to explain the effects of this denial.

I'm no theologian, Latin major, or expert on this subject, and I understand what you mean, but does this make sense?

We might also look at other passages of Trent to consider whether similar canons have been combined to establish meaning. Since Trent doesn't specifically say "baptism [of true and natural water] is necessary for salvation", can we assume that it's previous definition of what baptism is applies to this passage? It seems logical that it could, but what did Trent teach in other declarations? I think we might take a look at that...

Reply
#37
 
Quote:Then logically you must say that St. Alphonsus was a heretic because he said that they were de fide in his time and used that verse from Sacred Writ to back them up. You are saying a Saint and Doctor of the Church and founder of a great and holy religious Order is a heretic who denied a defined sacred dogma (of Trent) after the fact. Do you not see that it what you are forced to believe by saying that Trent made your interpretation of her statements a dogma?
No I do not think St. Alphonsus was a heretic, by the very fact that he is saint Alphonsus. However, neither St. Alphonsus or any other Doctor determines what is de fide. He can say that something is de fide but that doesn't make it so. He can be mistaken. A person is only guilty of heresy if they cling to an error that they know the Church has condemned. As I have pointed out only a BAJILION times, I do not consider those that believe in BOD and BOB as heretics so long as they don't deny EENS. The Church has NEVER defined BOD or BOB as heresy or as de fide so neither of us has the right to condemn the other for heresy. So, yes St. Alphonsus was free to believe that, but he is not the Church nor does he determine what the Church teaches. (I have no idea what you are saying in your last sentence.)

"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor,
and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal
source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine
great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she
recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred
Scriptures.
By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred
Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church
alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the
protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth
."

Pope Pius XII
Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953

Quote:How do with receive blood? Infants don't receive any real blood except maybe some Easterns who are given Holy Commmunion with their Baptism. We don't really receive real water either but are born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
I just said that "blood" could refer to the fact that, as St. Paul says, we are baptized into Jesus' death.

 
Quote:The Most Blessed Trinity's Divine Essense or Nature cannot be separated because God is One Being. We believe in one God. But the Divine Persons are really distinct from each Other, As the Athanasian Creed professes "The Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Ghost", so likewise, the three ways though one Baptism are three distinct ways to receive that one Baptism.
There you go again with your onw intepritations and contradictions. The Church only mentioned baptism of water as being true baptism, not one of many ways.


Quote: Hence "Baptism by the Water is not Baptism by Blood, nor is Baptism by Blood Baptism by the Spirit". The Bible also says that we will be baptized in fire: St. John the Baptist says, (Matthew 3:11) "I indeed baptize you in the water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire". Now are Catholics baptized in fire? The Scriptures are not always literal or absolute, didi. For instance our Lord also said, (John 6: 54) Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you". Does that mean Catholics who don't ever receive Holy Communion shalt not have any life in them? And note how our Lord uses the commanding words of "Amen Amen I say to thee" when He commands baptism (John 3:5) and here's another Divine statement: (John 5:24) Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life.
Here's the problem with your "thesis." Yes, it is true that the Bible does speak figuratively. Now, if I was basing my "thesis" on just the statement of Jesus from John about being baptized with water and the Spirit for entering heaven, then yes you would have a point. But I only keep referring to this specific passage for two reasons:

1.) The Church in all her dogmatic and infallible statements keeps referring to this specific passage and insists that all those baptized with water and the Spirit can enter heaven. Thus I am only understanding this passage in the way that the Church has dogmatically interprited it.

2.) You kept denying that the passage from John on baptism was literal while the passage on martyrdom was. I was only trying to see the logic of why you trumped one passage of Jesus over another by Him.

Now, for the passage about "Baptism of Fire." This is an excellent example that Baptism doesn't always mean Baptism in the sacramental sense. When ancient texts refer to saints receiving "Baptism of Blood" they are just referring to regular martyrdom, not martrydom in place of Water Baptism. Penance is also referred to as "Baptism of Tears" or a "Second Baptism." But none of these are "Baptism" in the sense that the Church has truly defined. Only Baptism of Water is true Baptism.

For the passage about Jesus saying we need the Eucharist to have life everlasting. That's a good point, but doesn't stand the test for a few reasons:

1.) The Church has never insuated that one cannot enter heaven without the Eucharist. So she has inteprited this passage differently than how she has interprited the passage on baptism.

2.) Like with the passage with baptism, it is not a command of God, but an affirmation. God can change His laws, but He cannot lie.

Jesus said one cannot enter heaven without water and the Spirit.
Jesus said one will not have eternal life unless they receive His Body and Blood.

Look what Jesus says at the Institution of the Eucharist. "Amen, I say unto you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until the day when I shall drink it new in the Kingdom of God."

There is a strong implication that we will receive Jesus in our resurrected bodies in heaven.

Remember, Jesus didn't say we must receive the Eucharist to enter heaven as He did explcitly with water baptism.

Both of His statements are true, citing no exceptions.


For the statement about believing in Him. Buddhists, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses all believe in Jesus. But none of them hear Him. By hearing, it is meant listen, that is follow what Jesus says. Only those in the Catholic Church can adequetly follow and hear what Jesus said. Again, this statement provides no exceptions. It is again an affirmation by the most High God and is perfectly true.





Quote:You are going by the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is the salvation of every single man though.
No, going by the letter of the law, would be saying a man needed to have his name in a baptismal register in the parish church to get to heaven. But no one is saying that. You think believing infallible statements of the Church that contradict your opinions is following the letter over the spirit. All the while you put more trust in fallible, no matter how personally holy they may have been, theologians.


Quote:I say if God can bring water to have a man receive the Graces of Baptism then why can He not also give those Graces without water.
He can but He said He wouldn't. That is, He wouldn't bring them to salvation without baptism.You are now challenging infallible statements of scripture and the Church for your own opinion.


Quote:As to your interpretation of Trent's infallible statements, I say with St. Peter: The Councils  "speaking....of these things, in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the...Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16

And I can just easily say the same to you. Does this make me more or less wrong or right? I take Trent's words at face value. You twist it. I deny no dogma of the Church. Even if BOD did exist it has never been defined, and one cannot be blamed for denying it.

Reply
#38
didishroom Wrote:
Quote:Then logically you must say that St. Alphonsus was a heretic because he said that they were de fide in his time and used that verse from Sacred Writ to back them up. You are saying a Saint and Doctor of the Church and founder of a great and holy religious Order is a heretic who denied a defined sacred dogma (of Trent) after the fact. Do you not see that it what you are forced to believe by saying that Trent made your interpretation of her statements a dogma?

Quote:No I do not think St. Alphonsus was a heretic, by the very fact that he is saint Alphonsus. However, neither St. Alphonsus or any other Doctor determines what is de fide. He can say that something is de fide but that doesn't make it so. He can be mistaken. A person is only guilty of heresy if they cling to an error that they know the Church has condemned.
do you really think that he AS A CATHOLIC BISHOP didn't know what the Trent was saying?

 
Quote:(I have no idea what you are saying in your last sentence.)
You said in so many words in this thread that "water Baptism alone is necessary for salvation" is a sacred dogma of Trent. Dogmas cannot be denied, you know this. Therefore BOB and BOD by your own interpretation cannot be believed as they are against what you consider is a dogma. So either you must stop saying it is a dogma or stick with your argument that BOB and BOD are denial of a dogma? You cannot have it both ways. Either baptism by water alone is a dogma and no Catholic can therefore believe in BOB/D, or it is not a dogma and therefore Catholics can believe in Baptism by desire and blood along with Baptism by water.

Quote:"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor,
and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal
source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine
great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she
recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred
Scriptures.
By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred
Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church
alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the
protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth
."

Pope Pius XII
Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953
You're not listen to me, I've already said that St. Alphonsus is not the only one who held the doctrine to be true, nor am I saying that he is the principal source of truth. 

Quote:
Quote:How do with receive blood? Infants don't receive any real blood except maybe some Easterns who are given Holy Commmunion with their Baptism. We don't really receive real water either but are born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
I just said that "blood" could refer to the fact that, as St. Paul says, we are baptized into Jesus' death.
"Could", it could also refer to baptism by blood as well as St. Alphonsus taught, right? 

Quote:There you go again with your onw intepritations and contradictions. The Church only mentioned baptism of water as being true baptism, not one of many ways.
No, that is you, not the Church. The Church by Her Popes, doctors and saints taught otherwise. I go with the Church and her priestly teachers rather than you.

Quote:Here's the problem with your "thesis." Yes, it is true that the Bible does speak figuratively. Now, if I was basing my "thesis" on just the statement of Jesus from John about being baptized with water and the Spirit for entering heaven, then yes you would have a point. But I only keep referring to this specific passage for two reasons:

1.) The Church in all her dogmatic and infallible statements keeps referring to this specific passage and insists that all those baptized with water and the Spirit can enter heaven. Thus I am only understanding this passage in the way that the Church has dogmatically interprited it.

2.) You kept denying that the passage from John on baptism was literal while the passage on martyrdom was. I was only trying to see the logic of why you trumped one passage of Jesus over another by Him.
Again you are privately interpreting Holy Mother Church's dogmatic statements against the interpretations of Her own bishop and priests who are the ones with the divine offices which primarily duty is to teach. And some wonder why Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for real disobedience.

Quote:Now, for the passage about "Baptism of Fire." This is an excellent example that Baptism doesn't always mean Baptism in the sacramental sense. When ancient texts refer to saints receiving "Baptism of Blood" they are just referring to regular martyrdom, not martrydom in place of Water Baptism.
I will need a dogmatic statement for that, please? No where does the Church declare that.

Quote:Penance is also referred to as "Baptism of Tears" or a "Second Baptism." But none of these are "Baptism" in the sense that the Church has truly defined. Only Baptism of Water is true Baptism.
Actually the Sacrament of Penance is a true baptism, it is a true cleansing or baptizes of the soul from sin by grace. It is not the Sacrament of Baptism though.

For the passage about Jesus saying we need the Eucharist to have life everlasting. That's a good point, but doesn't stand the test for a few reasons:

Quote:1.) The Church has never insuated that one cannot enter heaven without the Eucharist. So she has inteprited this passage differently than how she has interprited the passage on baptism.
Nor has She without water baptism. Fr. Feeney is one that falsely interpreted that against the Authority of the Church and therefore was excommunicated for his disobedience. 

Quote:2.) Like with the passage with baptism, it is not a command of God, but an affirmation. God can change His laws, but He cannot lie.
Duh!

Quote:Jesus said one cannot enter heaven without water and the Spirit.
Jesus said one will not have eternal life unless they receive His Body and Blood.
Heaven is eternal life, didi. As Jesus said: Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3) Eternal life and Heaven are both the Beatific Vision, the Immediate Knowledge of God.

Quote:Look what Jesus says at the Institution of the Eucharist. "Amen, I say unto you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until the day when I shall drink it new in the Kingdom of God."

There is a strong implication that we will receive Jesus in our resurrected bodies in heaven.
I believe that may be too but it is no dogma.

Quote:Remember, Jesus didn't say we must receive the Eucharist to enter heaven as He did explcitly with water baptism.
Yes, He did as I have shown.

Quote:Both of His statements are true, citing no exceptions.
Yes, in their true interpretation, in the infallible interpretation of Holy Mother Church.

Quote:You think believing infallible statements of the Church that contradict your opinions is following the letter over the spirit. All the while you put more trust in fallible, no matter how personally holy they may have been, theologians.
There you go again, saying that water baptism alone is a dogma. You have no right or authority to say that.


Quote:[quote]I say if God can bring water to have a man receive the Graces of Baptism then why can He not also give those Graces without water.
He can but He said He wouldn't.
Where did He say that? I remember God Himself saying "with God ALL things are possible". You putting words in the mouth of God, I'd watch it, didi.

Quote:That is, He wouldn't bring them to salvation without baptism.
No, said He wouldn't. The Church has said that He can bring them to salvation with baptism but not just of water but also baptism of spirit or of blood or, as the Roman Catechism itself calls them, "Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti" and "Baptismus sanguinis".
Quote:You are now challenging infallible statements of scripture and the Church for your own opinion.
Wrong. You are privately interpreting the dogmatic statments of Holy Mother Church to your own opinion. Why not going but the interpret of Her Popes, priests, bishops, doctor and Saints? God give them to us for this reason.

Quote:I take Trent's words at face value. You twist it.
No, you are the one twisting it, taking the words in your own interpret against the holy teachers of the Church.

Quote:I deny no dogma of the Church. Even if BOD did exist it has never been defined, and one cannot be blamed for denying it.
That is possibly so. But you are making up your own dogma, namely, that BOB/D doesn't exist. You may be able to believe they don't but you cannot say that your personal believe is a dogma of Holy Mother Church. She alone can say that.
Reply
#39
If I might have a word here, the issue is not the existence of BOD. Fr. Feeney, in his own book Bread of Life, admits and acknowledges it's existence. He didn't deny it's existence; he denied it's salvific effect.

Additionally, considering BOD and BOB are not dogmas of the Church, they are only theories - credible as they may be. Therefore, the discussion of the existence of BOD is not a only irrelevant, but a theoretical debate, and, as we all know, theories can't be proven.

Rather, the issue is not whether BOD exists, but whether or not it can save a soul. Fr. Feeney acknowledges that BOD justifies a soul. So no contention exists there. Instead, he concludes that justification, without baptism, does not save a soul. In other words, justification isn't always salvific - baptism is the prerequisite.

Acknowledging this point of contention, we should, rather than try to prove whether or not BOD exists, discuss whether or not it, by default, saves a soul. There are several canons relating to this particular issue:

Session 6, Chapter IV, Decree Concerning Justification (Jan. 13, 1547):

Quote:Quote:
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, 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 of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Session 6, Chapter VII, Decree Concerning Justification:

Quote:Quote:
This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. The causes of justification are: the final cause [justification coupled with Baptism] is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; 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 for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified,…

I have included the definition of "instrumental" for clarity purposes:

Main Entry: in·stru·men·tal
Pronunciation: \ˌin(t)-strə-ˈmen-təl\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a: serving as a crucial means, agent, or tool b: of, relating to, or done with an instrument or tool
Reply
#40
The reason that I hold to a conjunctive meaning of aut in "without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof" and "without [the sacraments] or the desire thereof" is because I simply do not see how one could be justified, but not saved. This discussion will hopefully be an insightful one.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)