holy Trent infallibly taught that Justification IS Grace by which alone is Salvation.
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by vertitam dilexisti
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.

Well, I'm not sure it's logically correct to forfeit the default disjunctive connotation of "or" in favor of a conjunctive substitute because of a few situations in which it was used this way. I think one would first have to prove that the Holy Fathers at Trent meant it this way. If "or", by default, denotes a given connotation, then any exception to this meaning must be proven on a case-by-case scenario. We might have affirmative evidence supporting the other cases, but we would first have to prove that, in this situation, the Holy Fathers at the Council of Trent meant something other than what they wrote - that "or" actually means "and" in this situation"; especially considering that these same Holy Fathers employed the disjunctive and conjunctive default connotations of "or" as well as "and" in their traditional usage in other sessions of the Council.

However, as it pertains to your statement: "I simply do not see how one could be justified, but not saved," I understand completely why you would think this. I, too, do not understand this.
Reply
#42
INPEFESS Wrote:Well, I'm not sure it's logically correct to forfeit the default disjunctive connotation of "or" in favor of a conjunctive substitute because of a few situations in which it was used this way. I think one would first have to prove that the Holy Fathers at Trent meant it this way.

I think that it is warranted by the aforecited canon of the Council of Trent on Baptism, which teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation; which canon cannot simply be rewritten to include sufficiency of desire. Besides, are BOB and BOD not supposed to be kinds of Baptism? [Image: eyes.gif]
Reply
#43
Quote:Orignally Posted by veritatem dilexisti

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.

Allow me to present the Baltimore Catechism's theoretical explanation to the question (it's ok, didi. I'm not holding this as Dogma :wink:).

Quote:*155 Q. Is baptism necessary for salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary for salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

(Considering this Catechism acknowledges the existence of BOD and BOB, it is referring to all methods of baptism)

Those who through no fault of theirs die without baptism, though they have never committed a [mortal] sin [or have failed to make an act of perfect contrition - as the Catechism explains elsewhere], cannot enter heaven--neither will they go to hell. After the last judgment there will be no purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of baptism know how very unfortunate they are.

Something like Limbo maybe? Does any of this contradict Catholic Doctrine?
Reply
#44
Quote:Originally Posted by veritatem dilexisti

I think that it is warranted by the aforecited canon of the Council of Trent on Baptism, which teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation; which canon cannot simply be rewritten to include sufficiency of desire. Besides, are BOB and BOD not supposed to be kinds of Baptism?

Well, I hope you're right, but that sounds more like a justification than an explanation. I can't blame Catholics who refuse to accept a position that seems to rely upon a justification. God's existence must be taken on Faith; accepting it must coincide with reason. Given the reward promised by the effects of Faith, it is reasonable to believe in (and therefore follow) God. If Faith produced belief in God, but cooperating with God meant eternal damnation while resisting Him meant heaven, who would follow Him?
Reply
#45
Quote: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.
This is precisely how all the theologians, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, saw and understood Trent's declaration on the doctrine of justification, and this is how, previously, did the early Church Fathers, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, as well as did the Scholastics, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, et al.  This is how the catechisms were formulated and written, following the Canons of Trent.  
As far as I know, with the exception of post V-II Catholics, we were all raised in the faith according to what the Catechisms taught.  If these were in error, then we were taught wrongly.  We can only look at the Protestants and see how much in the dark and in error they are following what is in the Bible and depending on their own interpretation.  The Church was right about not trusting the reading of the Bible to our own devises; for that we have the holy Magisterium as our guide.
Reply
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Vincentius
This is precisely how all the theologians, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, saw and understood Trent's declaration on the doctrine of justification, and this is how, previously, did the early Church Fathers, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, as well as did the Scholastics, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, et al.  This is how the catechisms were formulated and written, following the Canons of Trent.  

Vincentius, please don't interpret this as rude for I know, in writing, it reads as such, but do you have cites for all this information or is this what you suppose considering there doesn't seem to be any other explanation? How do we know, other than the fact that there seems to be a missing piece to this puzzle (where do justified, unbaptized souls go?), that these Holy Fathers interpreted "or" in the conjunctive sense in both passages relating to justification and the sacraments?

I'm not challenging you; I really want to know because I'm seeking for an answer. I've made an appointment to discuss this with another Catholic on Friday, and if a reasonable explanation for how a justified soul can be denied heaven doesn't exist, I fear I would be wasting my time.

Thanks and may God bless you.
Reply
#47
Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by Vincentius
This is precisely how all the theologians, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Alphonsus, St. Pius X, saw and understood Trent's declaration on the doctrine of justification, and this is how, previously, did the early Church Fathers, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, as well as did the Scholastics, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, et al. This is how the catechisms were formulated and written, following the Canons of Trent.  
Vincentius, please don't interpret this as rude for I know, in writing, it reads as such, but do you have cites for all this information or is this what you suppose considering there doesn't seem to be any other explanation? How do we know, other than the fact that there seems to be a missing piece to this puzzle (where do justified, unbaptized souls go?), that these Holy Fathers interpreted "or" in the conjunctive sense in both passages relating to justification and the sacraments? 

I'm not challenging you; I really want to know because I'm seeking for an answer. I've made an appointment to discuss this with another Catholic on Friday, and if a reasonable explanation for how a justified soul can be denied heaven doesn't exist, I fear I would be wasting my time. 

Thanks and may God bless you.
INPEFESS, no worries, no challenge here but you are most welcome to.  I'm not infallible and therefore anything I posit should be challenged.
A few posts back I stated that the belief and acceptance of BOD/BOB was never an issue as it is today (at least until Fr. Feeney brought it up), and was never hotly debated as we are doing.  In other words, there were no two camps of thought, although the doctrine on Baptism itself was defended by St. Augustine, et al., against those who denied it.
In that post I stated that if BOD/BOB were contrary to the Catholic faith, the saints would have condemned it and that would  be that.  Causa finita est.  But this was never the case.  Conversely and precisely, these saints not only propounded on it, but also postulated and laid it down as fact in the Catechisms, beginning with the Roman Catechism, compiled by St. Charles Borromeo and sanctioned by Pope St. Pius V.  If these two saints were in error, I can imagine how severe was the reprimand of Our Lord on them and these two would probably still be in Purgatory for as long as the error is propagated by all of us who adhere to it until the end of time.   That is my take on this issue.
JUSTIFICATION:  The holy Council of Trent was vey clear on this in her Session VI.  We almost know this by heart.
Quote:CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

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 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.
What the argument is about is the word "Or."  This is the linchpin of the confusion; it's tantamount to the arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  The conjusction "or" is "used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives" (either this OR that, to be OR not to be, etc.); it does not mean the conjunction "AND."  However, if we are determined to posit that it means "and," going forward citing the threefold EENS pronouncement, then the debate will go on forever and we will never come to agreement.  
Justificatrion is simply getting it right with God.  Trent unequivocally declared that a sinner who is justified has sanctifying grace in his soul and it this grace that saves him.  To God, a justified person is no longer in sin and is entitled to possession of his reward which is salvation.   Thus Trent condemned the Lutherans and other heretics because they taught that even if a person was justified he was still totally corrupted, denying the edoctrine of the Church.   (Canons 9, 12, 14, 24, 23, 33 and others).  
The problem and question seem to be, rather they are what is in the heart of the present question, is how desire for Baptism saves.  N.B.:  the proper phrase should be desire for Baptism, not "Baptism of desire," and this is the conundrum.  Despite that this phrase has stuck in our minds as to how in the world would derire save when it is clear that water is the requisite for the washing of Original Sin?
But -
Let's get practical and let's say that you, an adult non-Catholic want to join the Church and it is your hearfelt and sincere desire to be a  member and be incorporated in the Body of Christ because you have it in your heart that there is no salvation other than being a member of the Catholic Church.  [N.B.:  the "Extra" in Extra Ecclesiam means (to me anyway) "without" rather than "outside" -  Without the Catholic Church, there is no salvation.  Of course "without" essentially means "outside" and "apart from"]
You go for instruction to become a Catholic.  Your love for Christ is now supernatural, no longer superficial or a simple wish.
Let's say the day of your Baptism is the day before Easter 2009.   You are all set.  According to Trent, you are now justified in the eyes of God.  Unless you renege and have a change of heart, that justification remains and you are essentially in the state of grace.  The waters of regeneration which you will receive on the day of your Baptism will "secure" and make valid your desire and intention.  But then, between now and the day of your Baptism, you suddenly meet an untoward incident that will cause your death.  Unless at this time there is somebody attending your near death who would take upon himself to baptize you (not knowing this is your desire because you are unconscious or in a coma and cannot relay your intention), you have the misfortune to lose your soul -- simply because you have not received the sacrament of baptism by water.  
What is your fate?  Would have Christ deemed to send you to perdition?  This is what the saints have been stating in their catechisms and allocutions and pronouncements that your heartfelt intention and desire to be baptized has saved you.
I don't know how to explain and propound this any other way.  I don't know if this satisfies and answers your question:  "How do we know, other than the fact that there seems to be a missing piece to this puzzle (where do justified, unbaptized souls go?), that these Holy Fathers interpreted "or" in the conjunctive sense in both passages relating to justification and the sacraments?"
I also stated that nobody can claim to have been baptized by desire while still living.  Let me state emphatically that the scenario above is very rare or non-existent, but it should never be discounted as never occurring.
 
Reply
#48
Quote:
In that post I stated that if BOD/BOB were contrary to the Catholic faith, the saints would have condemned it and that would  be that.  Causa finita est.  But this was never the case.  Conversely and precisely, these saints not only propounded on it, but also postulated and laid it down as fact in the Catechisms, beginning with the Roman Catechism, compiled by St. Charles Borromeo and sanctioned by Pope St. Pius V.  If these two saints were in error, I can imagine how severe was the reprimand of Our Lord on them and these two would probably still be in Purgatory for as long as the error is propagated by all of us who adhere to it until the end of time.
You cannot prove something because no one has significantly challanged it. Our Lord said heresies must exist. The fact that saints, even pope, could be wrong on other things, should remind us not to put them on par, or even above, dogma.



 
Quote:
You go for instruction to become a Catholic.  Your love for Christ is now supernatural, no longer superficial or a simple wish.
Let's say the day of your Baptism is the day before Easter 2009.   You are all set.  According to Trent, you are now justified in the eyes of God.  Unless you renege and have a change of heart, that justification remains and you are essentially in the state of grace.  The waters of regeneration which you will receive on the day of your Baptism will "secure" and make valid your desire and intention.  But then, between now and the day of your Baptism, you suddenly meet an untoward incident that will cause your death.  Unless at this time there is somebody attending your near death who would take upon himself to baptize you (not knowing this is your desire because you are unconscious or in a coma and cannot relay your intention), you have the misfortune to lose your soul -- simply because you have not received the sacrament of baptism by water.  
What is your fate?  Would have Christ deemed to send you to perdition?  This is what the saints have been stating in their catechisms and allocutions and pronouncements that your heartfelt intention and desire to be baptized has saved you.
But this is the problem. You are assuming that accidents can prevent God from bringing baptism to someone. Forgive me, but I am so tired of these silly arguments being brought forth. INEPFESS has definetly humbled me and shown me how my previous posts were sometimes lacking in charity. But I can find no other words to describe these arguments against dogma. If the Church infallibly defines that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, and if we truly desire it and do our best effort to receive it, then it would be a cruel and merciless God Who would let him die without baptism. Only a statement from the infallible extraordinary magisterium could make me think otherwise.  
And if esteemed theologians and saints say otherwise, I don't care.
You say saints preached it. But what about the Eastern Fathers? None of them preached? St. Gregory deinied it, even in context of desire. Sts. Ambrose and Augustine both said catechumens were damned. Saints have raised people back from the dead, just to baptize them, in which they died immediately following. Don't act like the "other side" has nothing to stand on.

  


Quote:
I also stated that nobody can claim to have been baptized by desire while still living.  Let me state emphatically that the scenario above is very rare or non-existent, but it should never be discounted as never occurring.
You admit that it is rare or non existant. This means you don't of a single case where this might have happened. Yet you insist that such is dogma.And why can't they receive baptism of desire while living? Trent makes NO distinction. You are making this qualifier up.
Reply
#49
Quote:Originally Posted by Vincentius

The waters of regeneration which you will receive on the day of your Baptism will "secure" and make valid your desire and intention. But then, between now and the day of your Baptism, you suddenly meet an untoward incident that will cause your death. Unless at this time there is somebody attending your near death who would take upon himself to baptize you (not knowing this is your desire because you are unconscious or in a coma and cannot relay your intention), you have the misfortune to lose your soul -- simply because you have not received the sacrament of baptism by water.

What is your fate? Would have Christ deemed to send you to perdition? This is what the saints have been stating in their catechisms and allocutions and pronouncements that your heartfelt intention and desire to be baptized has saved you.



Quote:Originally Posted by didishroom

You are assuming that accidents can prevent God from bringing baptism to someone.

I think you are both coming from different perspectives. Having already debated with you, didishroom, I know that you believe that God, existing out of time, can know one's future intentions and desires. You've explained (or rather I've inferred) that you believe God can arrange what is, to us, the past so as to affect the future. If God sees that sometime between now and the time of baptism a certain catechumen will renounce Him, or that that person will change their mind, He can arrange events (or, considering God is not limited to sequence, He already has arranged it) so that some catastrophic incident claims their life. To us, it looks as if the catechumen truly desired baptism, but only God knows that the catechumen would have neglected to receive it. Thus, we believe that this soul has been saved (BOD), but God knows that this soul is damned. In other words, God would only take a catechumen knowing their intentions before their baptism.

I think didi is also saying that God, in conjunction with His own law, would not let someone who would have truly received it faithfully die without it; He would have arranged that that person receive it at some point. Thus, only those few catechumens who die before baptism would have, for some reason, intentionally neglected to receive it and thus made a deliberate choice. In summary, God would only allow someone to die without baptism if He knew that they would not have received it. If God determines that a certain person is to die on April 12, 2009, and they have not received baptism, but will desire it when that time comes, He will arrange the events of today to allow for that person's baptism between now and then such that they are not in want of baptism - they already have it. But if that same person would have, at that moment of death, not truly desired baptism (they fail to make an act of perfect contrition rendering them not justified), then God will allow for their death at that time. This is simply God working within His own laws promulgated through the mouth of Trent.

Do I agree with this assessment? I really have not the wit to know whether this is how God operates or not.

I think Vincentius is saying that God might allow for one who really would have received it to die before reception of the sacrament for the greater glory of God.

I wonder then, my friends, if we might ask ourselves a question as it pertains to this: Would God permit, for His greater glory, a catechumen to die before baptism, knowing that the intentions of that catechumen would have remained steadfast in his resolve all the way to the point of baptism? Would this salvation further glorify God?

Or instead, would God, seeing that a catechumen would lose Faith and neglect his baptism, allow for a person's death before the reception of the sacrament; yet, seeing the persistent Faith of another soul before death, arrange events such that he might receive the sacrament before he must rely upon a desire for it?
Reply
#50
Quote:didishroom writes:

If the Church infallibly defines that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation . .


Quote:“Now in order for a thing to be done for an end, some knowledge of the end is necessary.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theolgica, First Part of the Second Part, Q.6, Art. 1.

Didishroom,

We often overlook the obvious. I think this is obvious, but you don't hear it said in these passionate debates: baptism is absolutely necessary to have a desire for baptism. Think about it. If I have a desire for a certain woman, say, is that woman necessary for that desire. Of course.

Baptism does not cease as a means because its necessity is only of desire. Necessity is necessity. To paraphrase St. Thomas, baptism is necessary to desire baptism.

Vincentius - I want to say hello particularly to you, my old friend. I hope you remember me. You might be pleased to know that I have come to accept explicit baptism of desire - your position as I will never forget. It is the "implicit" stuff (not requiring actual knowledge of the end, Christ) that is odious and which takes Christ out of justification. And of course He is the sine qua non, the one thing ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

I do hope you're well. I think we last parted - at the Incorruptibles forum - on very good terms and with mutual respect. I am very glad to see you still around and fighting for the faith - and you won't have to fight me anymore. :)

Have a blessed Triduum.

tornpage
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)