Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


The question of OR

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The question of OR

Post  Jehanne on Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:06 am

We all agree that the following is an infallible statement of the Magisterium:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session. 6, Chap. 4: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it."

Of course, Baptism of Desire advocates use the above to say that Holy Mother Church infallibly defined that "desire alone" would be sufficient to save someone in the absence of sacramental Baptism. They point to the "or" as meaning either sacramental Baptism or the desire for it would be enough for a person to be saved. But, let's consider the following scenario:

Tom is a devout Buddhist adult who lives a moral and upstanding life, a person of good will. One day some fanatical Catholics kidnap Tom, and after handcuffing and shackling him, take him to a warehouse where they strap him into a device that they stole from Singapore which is used there to cane people. Once Tom is immobilized in the device, our fanatical Catholics decide to baptize Tom against his will, in spite of his pleas and screams to the contrary. After carefully using correct matter, form, and intent, Tom is sacramentally baptized in water; after that, Tom is released unharmed. Later that day Tom dies from a heart attack while in a Buddhist ceremony to "de-baptize" him.

Will Tom go to Heaven? By the logic of those who use the "or" phrase of Trent to mean either/or, Tom must be in Heaven, for he was validly baptized.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Missouri Mark on Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:23 pm

Tom wasn't validly water baptized because it was done against his will.

Missouri Mark

Posts : 21
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2011-02-22

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Jehanne on Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:14 pm

That's my point. Both the desire & water are required for a valid Baptism. Just as you cannot have a marriage without a bride and groom, so you cannot have a valid Baptism without water and desire. If either of them are missing, then there is no sacrament, and hence, no salvation.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  columba on Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:10 pm

This point has already been debated earlier.
Mryan (and I think Tornpage, Elisa, Simple faith and possibly Roguejim) would be of the opinion that the above quote from chapter 6 refers to desire being sufficient in itself. while MarianLibrarian, Duckbill, RashaLampa and myself (to name but a few) would hold that "or desire" refers to the disposition of the one receiving the sacrament without which the sacrament is invalid.
Tom the Buddhist is a good example of this.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Guest on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:10 pm

I can't find it on the internet but I heard it at a talk by a theology professor of an Catholic orthodox college, that the term "forced" has been debated as to what it meant. There have been several instances of forced baptism in previous centuries. The one the professor spoke of was typical in the middle ages. He said that they wouldn't consider it a "forced" baptism if you took an infidel and gave him a choice of death or baptism and the man chose baptism, they considered it a valid baptism. They thought that if christians were willing to die before they would give-up their faith then that is the way the infidel should act too.

Forced baptism was an issue when the Spaniards re-conquered Granada in the south, 1492. There is only about 70 years between the reconquest and the coucil of Trent. I wonder if there was a need felt to clarify "officially" in a council the need for desire as opposed to coercion.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Guest on Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

"You can't take a shower without water or soap."

Does the above statement mean that you can take a shower with only soap?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:03 pm

One would think that after all of this time Jehanne would have some grasp of the issues and the arguments behind them. He clearly does not.

His perfectly befuddled thinking can be summarized with his last statement where he says:

Will Tom go to Heaven? By the logic of those who use the "or" phrase of Trent to mean either/or, Tom must be in Heaven, for he was validly baptized.

Jehanne begins by saying that “Baptism of Desire advocates” (you know, like St. Thomas Aquinas and the Roman Catholic Church) believe in an “either/or” interpretation of Trent which says that a translation to justice may be effected through “either" a valid Baptism, “or” the desire for it (when the sacrament cannot be obtained due to some remediless necessity).

This is true, but not in the sense Jehanne presents it. I understand the point he is trying to make, which is this: With an “either/or” understanding, a valid baptism alone (without “the desire for it”) must be sufficient for justification and salvation, just as the “desire for it” is sufficient when the sacrament cannot be obtained. Thus, Jehanne surmises, “Baptism of Desire advocates” must say that the “devout Buddhist” who is baptized against his will is saved by virtue of the justifying and salvific power of the sacrament itself, without the "desire for it".

But such “logic” only demonstrates the illogical process by which someone can believe that an “either/or” understanding of Trent must needs hold that a valid baptism alone is sufficient to effect Justification, and fails to recognize that in order for the sacrament to bear the fruit of justification (sanctifying grace), the recipient must possess the requite faith and intention.

Jehanne is confusing the requisite “desire” (intention) necessary to receive a valid and justifying Baptism, with the ardent faith and charity-filled “perfect” desire that supplies for that which is ordinarily provided by the sacrament (the essential effects).

Trent is referring only to the latter type when describing that which is necessary to effect justification without the sacrament. The former type (proper intention) is included in the proper dispositions necessary to worthily receive the sacrament in fact, and in desire, which, as we should know, is a separate issue from that perfect “desire” that unites one to Christ through the bonds of faith and charity.

If the subject of Session VI, Ch. 4 was An introduction to a description of the Sacrament of Baptism, and of the Manner thereof, then Trent would be speaking only of the intention necessary to worthily receive a valid sacrament, and not of that particular “desire” that can effect a translation to justification without the sacrament.

Those who do not recognize the Church's teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire believe that the attainment of a salvific justification is bound exclusively to the law of regeneration in water baptism, without recognizing what the Church and her theologians have always recognized, to wit, that the fulfillment of the law may be realized through the spirit of the law (regeneration in Christ) by the means and bonds which are intrinsic to our justification/salvation:

As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." (Summa Theologica II, Q. 68, A. 2)
In Divinum Illud Munus (On the Holy Spirit), Pope Leo XIII taught:

“We have said that [when] the Holy Ghost gives Himself: "the charity of God is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us" (Rom. v., 5) … He is "the Spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba, Father." He fills our hearts with the sweetness of paternal love: "The Spirit Himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God" (Rom. Viii., 15-16) … for through Him ... "others are sanctified to be the sons of God by adoption" (St. Th. 3a, q. xxxii., a. I). This spiritual generation proceeds from love in a much more noble manner than the natural: namely, from the untreated Love.

And what would compel the Holy Ghost to be given to us and to pour the charity of God into our hearts (that charity which is ordinarily poured forth in Baptism)? Let Pope Pius XII explain:

"God is charity and he that abideth in charity abideth in God and God in him." The effect of this charity - such would seem to be God's law - is to compel Him to enter into our loving hearts to return love for love, as He said: "If anyone love me..., my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him." Charity then, more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ. (Mystici Corporis Christi, #73)

This why Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence (Basel), Sess. 22, Oct. 15, 1435, condemned and censured the proposition that “To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity; some other union is needed.”

And, in 1439 at the Counsel of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, in the Bull “Exultate Deo”, Pope Eugene IV also declared that “through grace man is incorporated with Christ and is united with His members”.(Denz. 698)

Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum, would seem to have confirmed this same teaching (which seems to be lost on the hard-core Feeneyite who elevates the instrumental, ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace to that of the sole means {by intrinsic necessity} of obtaining the grace of sanctification and salvation), when he declared:

In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.”
I would ask once again for any of the resident Feeneyites to provide us with just one example of a saint, theologian, Doctor or pope who, since the Council of Trent, took exception to the universal understanding of Trent on “desire” as it was always understood by the Church, and as it is presented in the Annotations of the Rheims New Testament of 1582 (commenting on John 3:5):

God which hath not bound His grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament, but some remediless necessity could not obtain it.
Any takers, or will you continue to go against the universal moral consensus of the saints and theologians, and against the clear teaching of the Roman Catechisms, Canon Law, etc. etc. etc?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:54 pm

RashaLampa wrote:"You can't take a shower without water or soap."

Does the above statement mean that you can take a shower with only soap?

Rasha, allow me to pick-up on your example by providing another:

"No man can survive without food or water for six months."


In your example, we can say that that either water or soap is sufficient to take a shower.

With my example (from someone on AQ), we can see that either/or does not work, as both food and water would be absolutely necessary.

But here is the problem with thinking that in the latter example "or", when translated into Latin, would be translated as "aut" and would mean "and", when said positively:

Unlike in the English language, Latin has several ways of saying "or", such as aut, vel, sive, etc. each of which is governed by specific rules with respect to whether it is being used, for example, as an an exclusive, or an inclusive, disjunction. And in the case of ecclesiastical or medieval Latin, these rules are followed with a greater precision than in classical Latin, which is not always as strict in following the "rules".

In ecclesiastical medieval Latin, "Aut", of all the possibilities for "or", "is the strongest [exclusive] disjunction in the Latin language", and as such, "It is almost impossible that the Fathers of Trent would be so careless and informal in the language as to use 'aut' to mean 'and.'"

In other words, what may work in English with "or", does not necessarily work in medieval Latin with "aut". The citations I provided are from a professional medeival Latinist (and Catholic, J. Arnobius), who was very patient in answering my direct questions and going over the rules governing the usage of "vel" and "aut" in ecclesiastical Latin. Unfortunately, those who think they can make a simple translation are not familiar with the "medieval Latin lexica, or better yet, treatises by medieval grammarians.”

In specific response to the “aut” of Sess. 6, Ch. 4, J Arnobius wrote (not necessarily in order):

“it would be extremely odd if aut meant 'and' in this context. As I said above such a use only occurs in late antique poetry (I believe you can find an example in Prudentius), presumably for metrical reasons, and in very informal contexts.

If the Fathers of Trent did indeed mean 'or' than there would be no other way to phrase the point without introducing a lengthy periphrasis which would be entirely out of the economical style typical of and proper to the ecclesiastical language.

If the Father did intend a conjuntive meaning, "and," there are many other ways they could have said it and they are guilty of a very bad and informal Latin.

Let me stress once again: there is no other way to phrase this line to make the disjunctive stronger. At the same time, if they intended a conjunctive, there are numerous other ways they could have said.

It is therefore philologically reckless to read this aut as an 'and.'

Second, as to the question of ambiguity, there is none - Either the Father's meant 'or' (as I have shown to be likely) or they meant 'and' (very unlikely) but I bet you that you cannot find a single instance in the Latin language of any period where an author chooses the word 'aut' in order to express an ambiguity between a conjunction and a disjunction.

Sorry to make it so complicated, but these rules are difficult, and there is no grammar book in English (or any other for that matter) that can spell out all the rules for you. You just have to spend many years reading Latin texts (a course, by the way, that I would heartily recommend: to put the study of theologia before the study of grammatica is to invert the Christian model of education).

In conclusion, then, precise scholastic Latin from the twelfth century on certainly held a distinction between vel and aut, and therefore it is fatuous to hold that the Fathers of the Council of Trent wrote in such a careless style as to intend a conjunctive meaning of aut.
I might add that I also ran these same questions by another Catholic academic who is fluent in medeival Latin, and he told me the same thing.

The only ones I have seen who challenge these professional commentaries are non-Latinists, or one or two who have only a passive, even if a somewhat proficient knowledge of Latin. Sometimes a little knowledgeable is just enough to be dangerous.

But this is the real clincher against the handful of those who insist that Trent really meant to suggest that "aut" is meant as an inclusive disjunction, or in the conjunctive "and" sense: Tradition is not with them.

Please don't tempt me, but I can fill these pages with citation after citation from the scholastic theologians and commentators, from the Doctors and from the saints, each of whom spoke Latin with a fluency that was common and even mandatory for any cleric or academic who wished to converse on matters of the Church, and I do not know of a single one - NOT ONE - who differed in his interpretation of Session VI, Ch. 4, from that which was always recognized by the Church - that justification cannot be effected without the Laver of Regeneration, or at least in desire (faith/charity/intention).

If the correct translation of Trent declares that BOTH Baptism and "the desire thereof" are necessarily for justification "as it is written", surely the Fathers, scholastics, theologians of Trent, and those that followed them, would have said so. They not only did not, they were universally consistent in the interpretation as it is presented by the Church in her authentic and ordinary magisterium.

Doesn't it seem just a bit disingenuous to those who support these novel theories on the "true" interpretation of Trent that it opposed to the traditional and unanimous understanding of the Scholastics and of the Church, that these recent theories are put forth by amateurs and other non-professionals in the field? I mean the best "proof" against tradition that one of the sede Feeneyites could provide was to pose the question to a professional classical Latinist who did not have a clue as to what Trent was talking about, and said something to the effect of "I guess it could be understood either way, depending on the intention of the Council".

Well, thank you for your opinion, and we think we understand the intention of the Council; but do you mind if we ask the professional medeival Latinists, the Saints and the theologians, the Scholastics and the other official Commentators who might have actually read Trent in her mother tongue, and understood not only the official language of the Church, but the mind of the Church?

I mean, if all else fails, we can always ask the Church? Ha!









avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

The real interpretation of Trent.

Post  Jehanne on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:10 pm

The correct interpretation of the infallible canons of Trent was given in the Roman Catechism:

Roman Catechism -- Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any UNFORESEEN accident make it IMPOSSIBLE for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."

Yep, not just any "desire," but their intention and determination, which Trent meant when they used the Latin word votum, an explicit desire.

But, the Council also said,

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

Likewise, at Vatican I, the same thing:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

But, let's look at the passage from Trent again:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

They said the same thing earlier:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of Baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ."

So, MRyan says that "aut" does not mean "and". So what?? Let's assume that "aut" simply meant "or," but not an "exclusive or." The Council, clearly, did not teach that desire for Baptism could be implicit, but with one's intention and determination, and only then, when an unforeseen accident would make receiving Baptism impossible. But, Trent, in its canons said that the One and Triune God does not command impossibilities, and according to Trent, the One God, through His One and Only Son Jesus Christ said, "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

Also, MRyan says that the "theologians matter." They don't:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable."[xiii]

No, consensus views do not matter, regardless of how many such quotes one can produce.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Father Feeney was right:

"There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life , pg. 56)

To sum up, the One and Triune God commands all to be "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5, RSV), and since with God, "nothing will be impossible" (Luke 1:37, RSV), which means that "all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26, RSV), and since God is a "God of knowledge," (1 Samuel 2:3, RSV), and since nothing happens apart from the "Father's will," (Matthew 10:29, RSV), and since "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27, RSV), we ought to conclude, as did Father Feeney and his followers, that God will provide sacramental Baptism to WHOMEVER sincerely desires it.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Missouri Mark on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:46 pm

Hmmm, I would have to agree with Jehanne on this one. Good job Jehanne !! Very Happy
You certainly have done your research.

Missouri Mark

Posts : 21
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2011-02-22

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:26 pm

Jehanne wrote:The correct interpretation of the infallible canons of Trent was given in the Roman Catechism:

Roman Catechism -- Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any UNFORESEEN accident make it IMPOSSIBLE for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."

Yep, not just any "desire," but their intention and determination, which Trent meant when they used the Latin word votum, an explicit desire.
Yep, and not just any "intention and determination", but a "desire" that must also include "repentance for past sins [i.e., perfect charity], [which] will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Jehanne wrote:But, the Council also said,

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. 'FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."

Likewise, at Vatican I, the same thing:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: "EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures."

But, let's look at the passage from Trent again:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

They said the same thing earlier:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of Baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ."

So, MRyan says that "aut" does not mean "and". So what?? Let's assume that "aut" simply meant "or," but not an "exclusive or." The Council, clearly, did not teach that desire for Baptism could be implicit, but with one's intention and determination, and only then, when an unforeseen accident would make receiving Baptism impossible. But, Trent, in its canons said that the One and Triune God does not command impossibilities, and according to Trent, the One God, through His One and Only Son Jesus Christ said, "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."
I wish I had a clue as to what you are rambling on about. Can't you just say what you mean instead of citing dogmatic texts as if to say that they contradict the Catechism of the Council of Trent, when they don't; or they contradict the established meaning of "Aut" in "or the desire thereof" as presented by Trent and by the Church and her saints and theologians over and over again?

Why would you suggest (wrongly) that the Church has infallibly declared that God will have every one of His elect Baptized in water because "nothing is impossible with God", when the Catechism of Trent (and the Church) clearly teaches that the "impossibility" of receiving the sacrament may in fact be is a very real possibility to the Catechumen? Why does the Church, her saints and her theologians continue to teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire (and has always held them with "firm conviction") IF, as you seem to want to suggest, it has been dogmatically and infallibly defined that the sacrament of Baptism is an intrinsic necessity of means and that God will and must provide the sacrament because, well, He has to since "nothing is impossible with God".

Is this one of those "hierarchy of truths" games you play whereby your private interpretation of a dogma "trumps" some "fallible" Roman Catechism and the authentic and ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church? Did you miss the part where the Church teaches that God binds us to the reception of the sacrament, but He is not bound by the sacrament to confer the grace of the sacrament? Have you heard that "strange" teaching before, that is as old as St. Augustine?

Jehanne wrote:Also, MRyan says that the "theologians matter." They don't
No, what doesn't matter is your arrogant, worthless and censured "opinion" that what the consensus of theologians says on a given teaching means nothing. Pope Pius IX, in Tuas Libenter, said otherwise.

Jehanne wrote:Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable."[xiii]

No, consensus views do not matter, regardless of how many such quotes one can produce.
This is pure rubbish. Once again we have a "dogmatic purist" who actually believes that because VCI defined that the infallible Primacy and authority of the Pope to unalterably define a doctrine is not derived from the consensus of the Church, but is derived solely from the divine power and singular privilege invested in his very person as Christ's Vicar, that a Pope might define a doctrine on faith or morals that is opposed to the consensus of the Church.

The Church teaches no such thing, and actually condemns such a ludicrous, and even "heretical", idea.

Jehanne wrote:The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Father Feeney was right:

"There is NO ONE about to die in the state of justification WHOM GOD CANNOT SECURE BAPTISM FOR, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life , pg. 56)

To sum up, the One and Triune God commands all to be "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5, RSV), and since with God, "nothing will be impossible" (Luke 1:37, RSV), which means that "all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26, RSV), and since God is a "God of knowledge," (1 Samuel 2:3, RSV), and since nothing happens apart from the "Father's will," (Matthew 10:29, RSV), and since "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27, RSV), we ought to conclude, as did Father Feeney and his followers, that God will provide sacramental Baptism to WHOMEVER sincerely desires it.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with that, even if Fr. Feeney's "clear truths" are his flawed private opinions, and hardly the Church''s own; but his conclusion simply does not follow from your poorly stated, and convoluted arguments.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Jehanne on Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:56 pm

In all the quotes that you have provided, the Church has never taught that any individual has ever attained Heaven, the Beatific Vision, who has died without sacramental Baptism in Water.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:16 pm

Jehanne wrote:In all the quotes that you have provided, the Church has never taught that any individual has ever attained Heaven, the Beatific Vision, who has died without sacramental Baptism in Water.
So what; she clearly suggests and has given official approbation to the belief that there are martyrs in heaven who were "baptized" only in the blood of suffering for Christ; and she clearly teaches that the grace of regeneration will be provided to those who are properly disposed, but are prevented from receiving the sacrament.

THAT is what the Church teaches, and she cannot contradict herself with respect to her own dogmas.

In all the quotes you have provided, the Church has never taught that ONLY those individuals who have been regenerated in water baptism (since the promulgation of the Gospel) have ever attained heaven.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Jehanne on Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:39 pm

Nowhere has the Church ever taught that those who were "baptized in the blood of Christ" were, in fact, never sacramentally baptized in Water. Likewise, never has the Church taught that it is possible to be "prevented from receiving the sacrament." As for the necessity of water baptism, the Church has taught that:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

Baptism of Desire does exist; no one doubts that, but it does not exist in those who have not yet attained the age of reason, for the Roman Catechism teaches, "Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism..."

Since Baptism of Desire exists only in those who have attained the age of reason, and since the One and Triune God, as we have already seen, "does not command the impossible" and since "anyone whatsoever" may baptize (Lateran IV, Canon 1), it is certainly within God's power to bring sacramental baptism to anyone in his or her infancy. Therefore, if a catechumen dies without receiving sacramental Baptism, we are certainly free to at least hope that he or she was baptized in their infancy.

So, while Baptism of Desire exists in those beyond the age of reason, we assert that it never occurs apart from sacramental Baptism in Water.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  MRyan on Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:57 pm

It is clear that you have no response to my responses to your poorly argued post and subsequent "rebuttals" on the meaning of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4.

Your take on the consensus of the Church and the definition of papal infallibility was just plain awful, but also very revealing of the mind-set that seeks to set the Church in opposition to herself.

Someone on this forum is impressed with your "research" when you can copy and past dogmatic texts which have absolutely nothing to do with countering my arguments, and it is also clear that your latest post is nothing more of the same dissembling and the changing of topics - for you have nothing more of value to say.

But thanks anyway.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  tornpage on Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:55 am

The Roman Catechism says:

"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any UNFORESEEN accident make it IMPOSSIBLE for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

And Jehanne actually quotes the Catechism and then actually argues that it's "impossible" that one of the elect not receive baptism. And some people here actually buy this argument and thinks it's convincing?

As usual, MRyan dispatches this "convincing" argument:

Why would you suggest (wrongly) that the Church has infallibly declared that God will have every one of His elect Baptized in water because "nothing is impossible with God", when the Catechism of Trent (and the Church) clearly teaches that the "impossibility" of receiving the sacrament may in fact be is a very real possibility to the Catechumen? Why does the Church, her saints and her theologians continue to teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire (and has always held them with "firm conviction") IF, as you seem to want to suggest, it has been dogmatically and infallibly defined that the sacrament of Baptism is an intrinsic necessity of means and that God will and must provide the sacrament because, well, He has to since "nothing is impossible with God".

I'll bear the risk of being labelled a "cheerleader" again for the hope of the gain that, by highlighting this point, some here come to their senses and see how ridiculous (rather than "convincing") the argument of Jehanne really is - not ridiculous logically nor philosophically, but by the only standard that matters in this context, what the Church teaches about salvation and justification (which is of course logical and completely consistent).

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 876
Reputation : 939
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Guest on Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:21 am

Mk 16:16. "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believed not shall be damned."

From the Catena Aurea , Bishop Theophylatus
comments:

“Or else; to every creature, that is, whether believing or
unbelieving. It goes on: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. For it is not enough to believe, for he who believeth and is not baptized , but is a catechumen, has not yet attained to perfect salvation.” http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Mark16.php

I think there is some reason to doubt that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are dogmatic.

One thing I have been thinking about is we are saved by Grace not our actions/works. Our actions only become salvific when we enter the Church and we are in the state of grace.

So desire seems to be "MY" work not God's it is "I" that desire and am causing the grace. Same with baptism of blood it is "MY' sacrifice that saves me.

Our actions are only salvific if we are IN Christ's mystical body, the Church. Otherwise we can be as good as we want but it won't save us.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Jehanne on Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:13 am

MRyan wrote:It is clear that you have no response to my responses to your poorly argued post and subsequent "rebuttals" on the meaning of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4.

It does not matter if "aut" means "and" or if it means "or". The following statements are equivalent:

1) One cannot have a wedding without a bride or groom.

2) One cannot have a wedding without a bridge and groom.

They are the same.

As for your quote,

"Why would you suggest (wrongly) that the Church has infallibly declared that God will have every one of His elect Baptized in water because "nothing is impossible with God", when the Catechism of Trent (and the Church) clearly teaches that the "impossibility" of receiving the sacrament may in fact be is a very real possibility to the Catechumen? Why does the Church, her saints and her theologians continue to teach baptism of blood and baptism of desire (and has always held them with "firm conviction") IF, as you seem to want to suggest, it has been dogmatically and infallibly defined that the sacrament of Baptism is an intrinsic necessity of means and that God will and must provide the sacrament because, well, He has to since "nothing is impossible with God".

How do you know this? If the One and Triune is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, pray tell, how is it ever "possible" that a catechumen should die without Baptism? First of all, as I have said, Baptism of Desire is not even an "option" for the first 7 seven years of a person's life. As the Council of Carthage infallibly defined (as promulgated by Saint Pope Zosimus), infants who die without Baptism are forever excluded from Heaven, the Beatific Vision, so if a person dies before the Age of Reason, he or she is forever lost. So, in order to experience "Baptism of Desire" one must be at least seven years old. Of course, the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God knows that, which gives Him seven years to secure that person's Baptism (because "anyone whatsoever" can Baptize), and neither you nor anyone else could ever prove otherwise! So, yes Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood do exist, but they do not exist apart from Sacramental Baptism in Water.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Guest on Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:25 am

JN10:1“I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber."

Jn10:7-9 "So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8“All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9“I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved,"

Dudes I've heard this door stuff before:
Vat. II:
"He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
( no link, you can find it. It is such a small and easy document to manage Wink)

Jesus=door; Baptism=door if you don't enter by the door you are a thief and a robber?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The question of OR

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum