Poll: Do you agree with the following:
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
6
0%
0 0%
21
0%
0 0%
5
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

EENS
#71
(04-02-2010, 12:35 AM)PeterII Wrote:
Quote:Sure, but the limitations and allowances of the Church generally are not given to just theologians but to the faithful as a whole.  So it is with heresy....OK, can you show me where it says that?  That only certain theologians have leeway to ponder such questions?  You're making a lot of claims of condemnations and rules that I've never seen anywhere.

First we must understand that one of the reasons theologians exist is to categorize or prepare propositions for the judgment of the Church. "Private theologians, either individually or collectively have no authority officially to censure  propositions, however they may, unless expressly enjoined from so doing in special cases, judge and qualify them according to existing doctrinal standards, and their initiative often goes far towards preparing the official action of the Church." CE

Now the common consensus amongst theologians about the propositions of Cajetan and a few others discussed was that they they are not part of revelation and private opinions.  But the real problems happened when some Catholics without authority began acting on these propositions and delayed the baptism of infants as described in the Monitum of the Holy Office.  As the CE says: "Condemnations issued on account of bad wording or evil consequences should at least put us on our guard against the hidden falsehood  or the noxious tendency of the proposition."

The consequences of Cajetan's et al propositions were evil abuses that had to be censured by the Church.  By their fruits you shall know them. 

OK, now I think you are making a more reasonable argument than saying they were condemned.

However, I'll point out that the abuses (at least the documented ones) happened like 300 years later.  One rotten apple doesn't spoil the barrel.  If we condemned statements based on people misapplying them, we'd have to condemn all of Scripture based on the Protestants.  We'd have to condemn a bunch of St. Thomas, too, especially about the act of conception.

I think we both agree that Cajetan's theory is not actionable because 1) the Holy Office clearly says it isn't, and, 2) common sense tells us it isn't because it isn't proven - it is exactly a theory that can never be proved or disproved.

The usefulness of such theories is it gives people hope.  Not people who putz around instead of getting their infant baptized, but people whose children die for whatever reason and no baptism is humanly possible.    There is every reason to hope in the Mercy of God that He will do everything possible to get people into heaven justly.  So, if a woman miscarries and there is no possibility of baptism, it can give her hope that the infant may somehow get to heaven.  We know with God all things are possible, and Cajetan's theory is one way it is possible.  We will never know it to be true or false in the temporal world.

That is the legitimate usefulness.  The illegitimate usefulness is to use it as an excuse to defer baptism, and that is wrong for reasons obvious to both of us.  It would also fail Cajetan's criteria - the parents have to desire to have the child baptized, and that desire has to be expressed in a timely manner, not years later - it has to be there at the time of death.  If parents putz around it can be argued they have no real desire because none is made manifest.  So even if Cajetan is correct, putzing parents wouldn't meet the bar.

So, I don't think it is necessary to throw away a theory that gives hope as long as it falls within the realm of possibility and people don't act on it.  I can see if you say it is too dangerous and should not be talked about - I think this was Pius V's position when he pulled it out.  So, I think both are reasonable, but I vote for the legitimate use of hope because the danger can be corrected, and has been, by proper Catechesis and the response of the Holy Office.

Quote:
Quote:Does the infant ask?  No, the godparents and parents ask for him.  They express the intention of receiving the Sacrament - thus they express the desire of baptism, and this is accepted by God and the Church in the case of Sacramental baptism.

But the asking is not a necessary part of the sacrament; so long as proper matter and form are there, the baptism is valid and grace is given ex opere operato even if the parents didn't want the baptism. 

Well, according to St. Thomas it is:

Quote:On the contrary, According to the Church's ritual, those who are to be baptized  ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus they express their intention of receiving the sacrament.

I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Romans 6:4: "We are buried together with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life." Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his former life"; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament.

And...

Quote:Objection 1. It seems that children should not be baptized. For the intention to receive the sacrament is required in one who is being baptized, as stated above (Article 7). But children cannot have such an intention, since they have not the use of free-will. Therefore it seems that they cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.

Reply to Objection 1. The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism  is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the
child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act  of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred  mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe  unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act  of those who bring them to be baptized.

And (I was saving this one) here is what St. Thomas says about baptism while in the womb:

Quote:Reply to Objection 1. Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action  of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action  of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace  of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.

In other words, St. Thomas clearly says that unborn children might receive a sanctification in the womb that is not Sacramental baptism.  So he leaves the door open to a sanctifying grace for infants outside of baptism in the Summa itself.  That doesn't mean he would agree with Cajetan, but he allows for the possibility that some children may not be destined to limbo without Sacramental baptism.

Clearly, he is not stating it as fact but as a possibility.

Quote:The Reptilians will have to wait. 

Yer no fun...
Reply
#72
Quote:OK, now I think you are making a more reasonable argument than saying they were condemned.

I said it was implicitly condemned, like a hidden falsehood.  It's possible in theory, but false in reality.

Quote:However, I'll point out that the abuses (at least the documented ones) happened like 300 years later.  One rotten apple doesn't spoil the barrel.  If we condemned statements based on people misapplying them, we'd have to condemn all of Scripture based on the Protestants.

Those statements come from the mind of men, not revelation. 

Quote:The usefulness of such theories is it gives people hope.  Not people who putz around instead of getting their infant baptized, but people whose children die for whatever reason and no baptism is humanly possible.    There is every reason to hope in the Mercy of God that He will do everything possible to get people into heaven justly.  So, if a woman miscarries and there is no possibility of baptism, it can give her hope that the infant may somehow get to heaven.  We know with God all things are possible, and Cajetan's theory is one way it is possible.  We will never know it to be true or false in the temporal world.

The noxious tendency of the proposition is that some people say it must be true because God would be unjust not allowing a miscarried child to be baptized, as if Heaven is a right rather than a privilege. 

Now as for "hope," the Church teaches that one cannot enter heaven without Baptism or the desire thereof.  Infants by their nature cannot have this desire (perfect charity/contrition) which only people with free will can.  If an unbaptized infant did make it to Heaven by God's direct intercession (a theoretical possibility) it is an exception to the rule.  But it is a principle of theology that an exception to a rule must be proved, not presumed.  Without a basis in revelation, the "hope" is without basis.

As for St. Thomas, you are applying a liberal interpretation without some context.  The will or intention to receive the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for an adult, because unlike infants, they have the ability to reject the graces given.  Therefore, the sacrament of Baptism carried out on an unwilling adult is considered invalid, but valid for a baby even if the parents are against it.  Babies do not have the ability to reject grace. 

As for sanctification in the womb, St. Thomas was arguing against those who thought we could do something to baptize babies in the womb.  He argues that only God can sanctify in the womb like with St. John the Baptist.  And that throws the ideas of vicarious baptism of desire and other theoretical "remedies" or actions performed by men out the window.  The only possibility is direct intercession by God - but the question is then, does God use this means?  The Church teaches no - it has always held that baptism is not only a precept, but an absolute necessity in the case of infants after the new law was implemented. Council of Trent: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."  And you cannot hope otherwise unless you have proof from revelation, which we don't have.
Reply
#73
(04-02-2010, 07:59 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Quote:OK, now I think you are making a more reasonable argument than saying they were condemned.

I said it was implicitly condemned, like a hidden falsehood.  It's possible in theory, but false in reality.

You flip-flopped at several points, and we can go through your flips and flops if necessary, but it probably isn't.

Also, this isn't proven false - it can't be; it is unprovable.

Quote:
Quote:However, I'll point out that the abuses (at least the documented ones) happened like 300 years later.  One rotten apple doesn't spoil the barrel.  If we condemned statements based on people misapplying them, we'd have to condemn all of Scripture based on the Protestants.

Those statements come from the mind of men, not revelation. 

As does Limbo.  There is nothing in revelation about limbo - there is only the fact that stained by Original Sin man would not have the beatific vision.  In fact, St. Augustine argued that infants who die without baptism suffer, and the Council of Carthage condemned the notion that unbaptized children exist in any place of happiness.  It wasn't until St. Thomas that it started changing to be a place where there is no temporal suffering yet away from the Beatific Vision.

Quote:
Quote:The usefulness of such theories is it gives people hope.  Not people who putz around instead of getting their infant baptized, but people whose children die for whatever reason and no baptism is humanly possible.    There is every reason to hope in the Mercy of God that He will do everything possible to get people into heaven justly.  So, if a woman miscarries and there is no possibility of baptism, it can give her hope that the infant may somehow get to heaven.  We know with God all things are possible, and Cajetan's theory is one way it is possible.  We will never know it to be true or false in the temporal world.

The noxious tendency of the proposition is that some people say it must be true because God would be unjust not allowing a miscarried child to be baptized, as if Heaven is a right rather than a privilege. 

That's the noxious tendency of St. Thomas as well from St. Augustine's perspective since he believed unbaptized infants would burn.  Personally, I'd go with the "noxious" tendency of mercy and justice than the "innoxious" tendency of overharshness and legalisms.

Quote:Now as for "hope," the Church teaches that one cannot enter heaven without Baptism or the desire thereof.  Infants by their nature cannot have this desire (perfect charity/contrition) which only people with free will can.  If an unbaptized infant did make it to Heaven by God's direct intercession (a theoretical possibility) it is an exception to the rule.  But it is a principle of theology that an exception to a rule must be proved, not presumed.  Without a basis in revelation, the "hope" is without basis.

Show me that "principle of theology" stated somewhere.  It doesn't exist.  second, there is no basis for non-suffering infant limbo in revelation, so therefore infants suffer in limbo, right?

Quote:As for St. Thomas, you are applying a liberal interpretation without some context.  The will or intention to receive the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for an adult, because unlike infants, they have the ability to reject the graces given.  Therefore, the sacrament of Baptism carried out on an unwilling adult is considered invalid, but valid for a baby even if the parents are against it.  Babies do not have the ability to reject grace. 

No, you need to read the quote again.  The intent is necessary for the infant - that is the point of the objection.  St. Thomas says the intent is inherent in those who bring him to be baptized.  Obviously, if the parents are against it, someone still has to bring him to the font, and the intent of the bringer suffices.  There is nothing that says it must be a parent.

In fact, he refers to St. Augustine to give the explanation - it is not because they can't reject it that it is efficacious, it is so through the intent of the bringers and the Faith of the Church

Quote:Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), "little children are offered that they may receive grace  in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost."

Quote:As for sanctification in the womb, St. Thomas was arguing against those who thought we could do something to baptize babies in the womb.  He argues that only God can sanctify in the womb like with St. John the Baptist. 

I know what he was arguing against.  But the implication is that there is a possible mechanism by which an infant can receive Sanctifying grace outside of Sacramental baptism. 

Quote: And that throws the ideas of vicarious baptism of desire and other theoretical "remedies" or actions performed by men out the window. 

That's not in his statement.  It only throws out Sacramental baptism and he gives the reason why - a man has to be born first to be reborn.

Quote:The only possibility is direct intercession by God - but the question is then, does God use this means?  The Church teaches no - it has always held that baptism is not only a precept, but an absolute necessity in the case of infants after the new law was implemented. Council of Trent: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." 

The same council allows for baptism of desire, doesn't it?  Which is not Sacramental baptism.  Therefore the Council does not rule out other forms of sanctifying grace.  You can't read into things that which isn't there and hope you get conclusions that stick.

Quote:And you cannot hope otherwise unless you have proof from revelation, which we don't have.

We are allowed to hope that infants don't suffer while in limbo, and there is no proof from revelation that that is the case.  So, to follow your logic, we are required to believe that unborn infants suffer the pains of hell, but perhaps to a lesser degree.

I'm fine if you think something is imprudent, but if you want to restrict that which the Church doesn't, I'm going to keep hammering back at you.  You have no right to determine a belief as unlawful or condemned when the Church has done no such thing.
Reply
#74
Quote:That's the noxious tendency of St. Thomas as well from St. Augustine's perspective since he believed unbaptized infants would burn.  Personally, I'd go with the "noxious" tendency of mercy and justice than the "innoxious" tendency of overharshness and legalisms.

This is not a debate about the extent of suffering or happiness of Limbo, a topic unto itself which is open to opinion.  This is about whether infants enter Heaven without sacramental Baptism or martyrdom. 

Quote:Show me that "principle of theology" stated somewhere.  It doesn't exist.  second, there is no basis for non-suffering infant limbo in revelation, so therefore infants suffer in limbo, right?

That exceptions to a rule must be proven and not presumed should be common sense:  "Hey, if I disagree with a Church teaching, I better have a good reason backing me up, or I just might be a heretic, duh."  This general principle is found in law and theology.  The theologians at SiSiNoNo explain:  "The exceptions to a general law, Cardinal Journet reiterates in agreement with all Catholic theology, cannot be presumed, but must be proved."  And their citation is - Cardinal Journet, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, s.v. “Baptism,” and Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IV, 150.

There is also basis for non-suffering of infants in revelation, since exclusion from the Beatific vision does not necessarily mean suffering hell-fire as proven by the Limbo of the Fathers.

Quote:But the implication is that there is a possible mechanism by which an infant can receive Sanctifying grace outside of Sacramental baptism.

How can you draw that conclusion?  This is like Protestant's who say "faith alone" only now it's "intent alone."  There is a necessary intention to carry out the sacrament of baptism, but that intention is inefficacious if the sacrament is not actually carried out, as dictated by God himself.  One of the condemned propositions of the Modernists is: "42. The Christian community imposed the necessity of Baptism, adopted it as a necessary rite, and added to it the obligation of the Christian profession."  This necessity is imposed by God.  The only extraordinary  "mechanisms" (and shown in revelation) are martyrdom and voto, and infants can't have voto

Quote:I'm fine if you think something is imprudent, but if you want to restrict that which the Church doesn't, I'm going to keep hammering back at you.  You have no right to determine a belief as unlawful or condemned when the Church has done no such thing.

And you can't turn sacramental Baptism, a necessity of means, into a precept, which is what is implied if the mere intent of other people suffices to merit sanctifying grace for infants without Baptism.  In fact, you will have to explain to us how sacramental Baptism is a necessity of means, if at the same time we can hope God has mechanisms in place for all circumstances where the sacrament is unavailable.  It's a contradiction. 
Reply
#75
Quote: Abp. Lefebvre's a heretic?

Did he believe in "implicit" baptism of desire?  If so, he was a material heretic.
Reply
#76
Quote: Do you accept the Council of Trent?

Most assuredly:

TRENT Wrote:Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

TRENT Wrote:Canon 2. 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.

So be honest.  Say: I firmly believe that baptism is optional.  Or, if you think there is some sort of mystical baptism, say I firmly believe that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism.  Say what you believe.

Implicit Desire is an heresy.  It should be called the Immaculate Reconception.  It is pure Pelagianism.
Reply
#77
Quote: Its not an open question either though because doctrinal decrees from the Holy Office are not subject to debate:

There wasn't any doctrinal decree from the Holy Office.  It was a private letter.  I will deal this more in depth later, but THIS IS ALL YOU HAVE.  A private letter.  Give me an encyclical or a Council.  You can't.  Implicit Desire is Pelagian.
Reply
#78
(04-05-2010, 06:49 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: Do you accept the Council of Trent?

Most assuredly:

TRENT Wrote:Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.

TRENT Wrote:Canon 2. 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.

So be honest.  Say: I firmly believe that baptism is optional.  Or, if you think there is some sort of mystical baptism, say I firmly believe that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism.  Say what you believe.

No one says that baptism is optional. A desire for baptism does not mean the desirer thinks it is optional or that I believe it is optional.

Christ stated more often than he did concerning the necessity for baptism that only those who ate His Body and drank His Blood would share in eternal life. What of those who have been baptized but are not old enough to receive Him under the form of the Eucharist? Do they go to hell, too?

It is interesting that the Summa was placed on the altar during the Council of Trent...

“Objection: the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Aristotle’s Metaphysics V). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism. Reply: the sacrament of baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as there can be no salvation for man unless he at least have it in desire which, with God, counts for the deed.” (Summa Theologica 3, 68, 2)

“Moreover, the sacraments of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before he receives them, either actually or in his desire, he does not receive grace. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to penance likewise.” (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)

From the Council of Trent: “Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacrament confession of the said sins, at least in desire [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism.” (Denz 807)

Trent: “The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament can can be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.” (Denz. 898)

“Moreover, the sacraments of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before he receives them, either actually or in his desire, he does not receive grace. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to penance likewise.” (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)

From the Council of Trent: “Now as to the use of this holy sacrament [of the Eucharist], the Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners; others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire [voto] that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof; whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment.” (Denz. 881)

“In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while desiring to receive the sacrament; and this is not merely to eat Christ spirituall, but likewise to eat Christ sacramentally.” (Summa Theologica 3, 80, 2)

From the Council of Trent: “And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneratoin, at least in the desire thereof [aut eius voto], as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”” (Denz. 796)

The fathers used this same Scriptural passage so often cited by contestants, yet in their own explanation of it recognized a desire. I doubt they would overlook such a glaring contradiction if they did not interpret it this way.

Was Aquinas a Palagian heretic, too?

“Man receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has baptism in desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues.” (Summa Theologica 3, 69, 4)

Treating of the words "explicit" and "implicit", Aquinas says:

“Properly speaking, that is called implicit in which many things are contained as in one, and that is called explicit in which each of the things is considered in itself.” (Of Truth 14, 11)

Council of Trent: “The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before the sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire [voto] of the sacrament which is included therein.” (Denz. 898)

“This sacrament [of the Eucharist] has, of itself, the power of bestowing grace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from some desire thereof [ipsius voto]; from his own desire, as in the case of the adult, of from the Church's desire in the case of her children.” (Summa Theologica III, 79, 1)

“Nevertheless, there are some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are free who are members of Christ by the actual union of charity; but such as are tainted with these sins are not members of Christ actually, but potentially; except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith [i.e. without hope and charity added to it,] which unites to God, relatively but not simply, viz. so that man partake of the life of grace. For, as is written (James 2:20): “Faith without works is dead.” Yet such as these receive from Christ a certain vital act, i.e. to believe, as if a lifeless limb were moved by a man to some extent.” (Summa Theologica 3, 8, 3)

From the Council of Trent: “Whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these gifts infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites a man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His Body.” (Denz. 800)

“We must needs say that in some way [that is, instrumentally,] the sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism (Gal. 3:27): “As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ.” And man is made a member of Christ through grace alone.” (Summa Theologica 3, 62, 1)







Reply
#79
Here is the translation that I use:
Quote: And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Note that "without" is implied in the second phrase.  Here's the test, eliminate "without the laver of regeneration" from the above and see if the sentence makes sense.  If it doesn't, then you are missing an implied preposition.  So the statement is "And this translation...cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof,...".  This is clearly a commentary on forced baptisms.  If you say the "or" means you can be saved with desire only, then you must also say that salvation can come with baptism ONLY and no desire for it.  This is false, as you must freely desire baptism to be valid. 

Furthermore, it is written as a statement of necessity, not sufficiency. 

And finally, if you say this means that people are saved by a desire for baptism, then it contradicts itself in Session 7.  Everything points to this meaning that BOTH are required to be saved, including the context I highlighted.

But this has nothing to do with "implicit desire", which says men are saved without baptism, that baptism does not require water, and that men are saved because they earned it.
Reply
#80
Quote: No one says that baptism is optional. A desire for baptism does not mean the desirer thinks it is optional or that I believe it is optional.
So which anathema do you choose to fall under, Canon 2 or Canon 5.  Be honest, which one is wrong?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)