Which of the points of the Syllabus of Errors are defunct because of Vatican II?
#31
(05-16-2017, 10:40 PM)NemoClericus Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 10:07 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: It is also why "baptism of desire" is such an offensive concept.
Please explain why Trent and Thomas Aquinas support Baptism of Desire and you do not:

Quote:"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein 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 Saviour. 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" Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Fourth Chapter."

Your quote from the Council of Trent has to do with justification and not salvation. Justification is so far from salvation that the Apostles Creed refers to the Limbo of the Justified as "hell." The same Council of Trent infallibly teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation.. There is no one about to die in a state of justification who God cannot provide water baptism for.

Quote:CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

The Council of Trent,  Seventh Session, First Decree and Canons
'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply
#32
(05-16-2017, 11:02 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: The same Council of Trent infallibly teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation.. There is no one about to die in a state of justification who God cannot provide water baptism for.
Do you also reject baptism of blood? I can give you a clear cut example of that happening.
Reply
#33
(05-16-2017, 11:05 PM)In His Love Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 11:02 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: The same Council of Trent infallibly teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation.. There is no one about to die in a state of justification who God cannot provide water baptism for.
Do you also reject baptism of blood? I can give you a clear cut example of that happening.

I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. All of the martyrs who died for the true faith were baptized before their martyrdoms. No historian can infallibly prove otherwise.

'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply
#34
(05-16-2017, 11:14 PM)St. Camillus Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 11:05 PM)In His Love Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 11:02 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: The same Council of Trent infallibly teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation.. There is no one about to die in a state of justification who God cannot provide water baptism for.
Do you also reject baptism of blood? I can give you a clear cut example of that happening.

I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. All of the martyrs who died for the true faith were baptized before their martyrdoms. No historian can infallibly prove otherwise.
"One Baptism for the remission of sins" does not exclude BOD and BOB.

"In the liturgical calendar today, the blessed memory of St. Emerentiana is remembered and celebrated in the Mass and the Divine Office. The best way to understand the story of this great Saint and Martyr is to read what the Roman Breviary says of her today, in the Office of Matins, Second Nocturn: “Emerentiana, a Roman virgin and the foster-sister of blessed Agnes, while she was still a Catechumen, burning with faith and charity, rebuked the idol worshippers who were full of fury against the Christians, whereupon a mob assembled and stoned her. Praying in her torment at the grave of St. Agnes, and having been baptized in her own blood, so generously shed for Christ, she gave up her soul unto God.”"

"“Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood.” (St. Cyprian the Church Father, Epistle LXXII)"

"“…the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)

“Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.” (Pope St. Pius X, Catechsim of Christian Doctrine)"

https://thetraditionalisttimes.wordpress...fr-feeney/
Reply
#35
(05-16-2017, 10:28 PM)NemoClericus Wrote:
(05-16-2017, 10:07 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: It is also why "baptism of desire" is such an offensive concept.

I thought Saint Dismas made it to Paradise because of Baptism of Desire?

This comes up a lot. The Church teaches that receiving the Sacrament of Baptism did not become obligatory for salvation until after Christ's death and Resurrection.

“Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”(The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171:)

"Cornelius and the Good Thief were justified without having any knowledge of Baptism, but everyone knows that the obligation of Baptism did not commence until after the death of Our Savior: (TRE 128, n.13 St. Alphonsus Ligouri).
Reply
#36
(05-16-2017, 10:30 PM)In His Love Wrote: St. Camillus, say you're an elderly person and you want Baptism. A priest has been called in to baptize you in your room of the nursing home. Your earthly life is gently ebbing away. You say prayers as you look at a crucifix you recently bought, eagerly looking forward to the moment the priest comes and gives you Baptism. By the time the priest arrives, you've died in your bed.

What is offensive about the concept of this man being saved despite not being baptized in water? God is not bound by His Sacraments.

The phrase God is not bound by His sacraments has been around a while but I always wonder, has He not bound Himself to them?  After all He gave Peter the power to bind and loose and that whatever would be bound on Earth, would be bound in Heaven.  Peter and his successors bound us to receive the sacrament of Baptism and God has bound Himself so that anyone who would be saved shall have it so.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, 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.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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.”

Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385: “Therefore.... we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”

Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility.  But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.” (Faith of the Early Fathers)

It seems to me that God's hand cannot be shortened due to "unforeseen circumstances" (unforeseen to whom I would ask?)

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, ex cathedra: “God protects and governs by His providence all things which He has created, ‘reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly’.

“How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (St. Augustine: The Faith of Our Fathers, Fr. Jurgens, bk. 3, 1496; On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7.)

St. Augustine teaches that there are no unforeseen accidents within God's unlimited Providence and He is in complete control: : “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’  (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

St. Augustine: “Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because, of these men, Our Lord says: ‘This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’” (Against Julian Book 5, Chapter 4)

It is nothing to God to get water and an administer to someone who needs and desires it. 

There are many accounts of saints raising people from the dead just to baptize them so they can enter Heaven, which if desire alone sufficed would be completely superfluous. 

“In all, St. Patrick brought to life some forty infidels in Ireland, one of whom was King Echu… On raising him from the dead, St. Patrick instructed and baptized him, asking what he had seen of the other world.  King Echu told how he had actually beheld the throne prepared for him in Heaven because of his life of being open to the grace of Almighty God, but that he was not allowed to enter precisely because he was as yet unbaptized.  After receiving the sacraments… (he) died instantly and went to his reward. ( Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 384.)

As for St. Emerentiana or any other Saint or martyr said to have received baptism of blood, she (or they) very well could have remained a catechumen even after baptism, though it not have been recorded. (BoB reception and sacramental baptism do not necessarily preclude each other).

...... “Fifth, when a martyr is referred to as a ‘catechumen,’ it does not always mean he was not yet baptized.  A catechumen was a person learning the Faith, as a student in a class called a catechumenate, under a teacher called a catechist.  That students continued in their class even after they were baptized is confirmed conclusively by these words of Saint Ambrose to his catechumens:  “I know very well that many things still have to be explained.  It may strike you as strange that you were not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were baptized.  However, the ancient discipline of the Church forbids us to reveal the Christian mysteries to the uninitiated.  For the full meaning of the sacraments cannot be grasped without the light which they themselves shed in your hearts.” (On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, Saint Ambrose)

The accounts of the martyrs are from fallible sources and are known to possibly have errors:

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs… [which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church… because the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of mockery might arise.”

The Age of Martyrs, the renowned Church historian Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti says:  “For guides we have appropriate documents.  These, however, as we have already seen, are often uncertain and would lead us completely astray.  Especially unreliable are the Acts or Passions of martyrs.”

Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 310: “An historical statement in the ‘Martyrology’ as such has no authority… A number of entries in the Roman Martyrology are found to be unsatisfactory when so tested.

(05-16-2017, 11:16 PM)In His Love Wrote: "“Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood.” (St. Cyprian the Church Father, Epistle LXXII)"

This is most likely an error by St. Cyprian.  Proponents of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood know that neither are actualy  sacraments . Unless, he was positing that Angels baptize invisibly with water from one's own blood. Incidentally, St. Cyprian made another error on Baptism when he stated  “… in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics… This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…” (St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254)).

We know though from Trent that baptisms by heretics are valid, provided they use the right formula. 
Reply
#37
Many of the referenced quotes don't supply an argument against Baptism of Desire unless they are interpreted in the most wooden context possible; the exact same type of failure in comprehension to discern the normative context in speech that renders the Protestant objection to Mary's sinless life - "But all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God!!!"

Trent itself mentions Baptism of Desire, as does Aquinas (and links it with salvation, not just justification no less). Canons 2 and 7 of Trent are obviously aimed at Protestant objections to the reality of saving grace in baptism.

The mention of binding and loosing seems to present a similar use of ossified reasoning. Christ Himself bound us to Baptism, Peter has confirmed this command throughout the ages and condemned any Protestant attempts to deny its necessity; Peter isn't the principle (origin) of Truth, but its infallible guarantor on earth. God is bound to dispense the mode of grace objectively in all of His Sacraments, but that doesn't mean He's hamstringed with regards to other, unknown and extraordinary methods (which at any rate no one should count on).
Reply
#38
(05-17-2017, 03:16 PM)NemoClericus Wrote: Many of the referenced quotes don't supply an argument against Baptism of Desire unless they are interpreted in the most wooden context possible; the exact same type of failure in comprehension to discern the normative context in speech that renders the Protestant objection to Mary's sinless life - "But all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God!!!"

Trent itself mentions Baptism of Desire, as does Aquinas (and links it with salvation, not just justification no less). Canons 2 and 7 of Trent are obviously aimed at Protestant objections to the reality of saving grace in baptism.

The mention of binding and loosing seems to present a similar use of ossified reasoning. Christ Himself bound us to Baptism, Peter has confirmed this command throughout the ages and condemned any Protestant attempts to deny its necessity; Peter isn't the principle (origin) of Truth, but its infallible guarantor on earth. God is bound to dispense the mode of grace objectively in all of His Sacraments, but that doesn't mean He's hamstringed with regards to other, unknown and extraordinary methods (which at any rate no one should count on).

You do know that St. Thomas Aquinas believed that only those who have an explicit faith in the necessary mysteries could have the baptism of desire, correct? The number of catechumens who have had an explicit faith but are believed to have died before baptism is very small. The difference between what I believe about EENS and what St. Thomas believed is very trivial compared to your difference with St. Thomas Aquinas on the necessity of an explicit faith for salvation. Please don't pretend to be scandalized by my disagreeing with some of the doctors on "baptism of desire" when you have a much bigger disagreement with not merely some of the doctors, but all of them, since they all believed that an explicit faith is necessary for salvation.
'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply
#39
(05-17-2017, 03:16 PM)NemoClericus Wrote: Many of the referenced quotes don't supply an argument against Baptism of Desire unless they are interpreted in the most wooden context possible; the exact same type of failure in comprehension to discern the normative context in speech that renders the Protestant objection to Mary's sinless life - "But all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God!!!"

Trent itself mentions Baptism of Desire, as does Aquinas (and links it with salvation, not just justification no less). Canons 2 and 7 of Trent are obviously aimed at Protestant objections to the reality of saving grace in baptism.

The mention of binding and loosing seems to present a similar use of ossified reasoning. Christ Himself bound us to Baptism, Peter has confirmed this command throughout the ages and condemned any Protestant attempts to deny its necessity; Peter isn't the principle (origin) of Truth, but its infallible guarantor on earth. God is bound to dispense the mode of grace objectively in all of His Sacraments, but that doesn't mean He's hamstringed with regards to other, unknown and extraordinary methods (which at any rate no one should count on).

I'm not having any failure of comprehension, and am very familiar with the concept of B.O.D. and its historical development.

Not sure there is much disagreement here other than why God would prefer to leave someone without the sacrament when it is no more difficult to not do so.  He's not hamstringed either way.

What I find interesting is the claim that God cannot be bound by His Sacraments, but then also that God can be bound by time or "impossibility", preventing Him from getting the Sacrament to the person. Sure, God could bypass the Sacraments to confer grace, but the question is whether He actually does bypass the Sacraments.  Since God cannot be bound by impossibility or time or inconvenience or other circumstances and is more than capable of bringing Sacramental Baptism to all of His elect, this means that God would have to positively will to bypass the Sacrament.
Reply
#40
Selective quoting does not a good theologian make :

(05-17-2017, 01:16 PM)BC Wrote: Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, 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.”

Yet consider the same session's De Sacramentis Canon 3, which gives context to the later De Baptismo Canon 5 you've quoted : "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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

So the only way to understand your quote is that desire for Baptism (along with supernatural Charity, which requires an actual grace giving it, Faith, Hope and perfect contrition) is sufficient for salvation.

Also consider Canon Law (CIC/1917 can. 1239 §2) : Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt. (Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be accounted as baptized [as regards ecclesiatical burial]). The Church accords the full Christian funeral rites to non-baptized Catechumens, meaning the Church asserts there is a real possibility of their salvation without having actually been baptzied (otherwise funeral rites would be in vain and sacrilegious).

(05-17-2017, 01:16 PM)BC Wrote: Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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.”

This refers to the matter and form of the Sacrament of Baptism. Baptism of desire (or better said, the desire for Baptism) is not a sacrament and thus has no matter or form.

That's why one who is justified by Baptism of Desire would still need to receive Sacramental Baptism if possible, and would not have the Sacramental Character, nor be a visible member of the Church until having been Sacramentally Baptized.

We could easily quote just as many magisterial teachings (Innocent II, Innocent III, Pius XI, which also make it clear that it's a Theological Error to deny Baptism of Desire (as the Church understands it). I would personally consider denial of it not merely error but proximate to heresy, given such quickly and easily leads to the heresy the Fr. Feeney and followers eventually accepted in trying to reconcile their errors with the Faith : that Baptism of Desire confers a "justification" but still dying without Sacramental Baptism one would be damned. That is implicitly to reject the Catholic doctrine on justification and Sanctifying Grace, asserting that a soul with Sanctifying Grace would not be saved.

It is Catholic Doctrine that in addition to Sacramental Baptism one can also receive Sanctifying Grace even though unbaptized and thus be saved if one willingly accepts Martyrdom of an unbaptized soul (often called Baptism of Blood) or if one truly and at least implicit desires Sacramental Baptism (provided that one has, thanks to an actual grace, supernatural Faith, Hope and Charity with a perfect contrition).
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)