Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments (Read 20047 times)

Soubirous · « **Reply #30 on:** February 22, 2024, 03:07:26 PM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 22, 2024, 09:34:00 AM

The Catechism of the Council of Trent also confirms that the Council taught that for those who fall into sin after baptism, the sacrament of penance is as necessary to salvation as baptism is for those who haven't been baptized.

That St. Bonaventure text you linked to is interesting. There's also another post on that blog that's relevant to this topic:

https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2023/09/08/a-necessary-dilemma-rejecting-baptism-of-desire-requires-rejecting-perfect-contrition/

The earlier link regarding St. Bonaventure is indeed the writing of St. Bonaventure. However, this last link is by a Paul G. Matheson. The Centurion is a personal blog consisting of all of three items including the two above. It provides no information about the author. I've searched for any other mention of a Paul G. Matheson in a theological context, and there is none. What are this person's credentials, if any?

Joe Cupertino · « **Reply #31 on:** February 25, 2024, 11:27:18 AM »

I linked to that blog post because of its relevance to this thread, not as a citation of Matheson as a theological authority. The blog post corroborates DR's point, and backs it up with theological authorities. I found it particularly interesting that the sacrament of penance is necessary by a necessity of means. I've seen and heard people say it was only a necessity of precept, and used to think the same. But now that I think about it, I've never seen a Catholic source of any authority say it was only necessary by a necessity of precept.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** February 25, 2024, 11:46:59 AM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 25, 2024, 11:27:18 AM

I linked to that blog post because of its relevance to this thread, not as a citation of Matheson as a theological authority. The blog post corroborates DR's point, and backs it up with theological authorities. I found it particularly interesting that the sacrament of penance is necessary by a necessity of means. I've seen and heard people say it was only a necessity of precept, and used to think the same. But now that I think about it, I've never seen a Catholic source of any authority say it was only necessary by a necessity of precept.

It's necessary by necessity of means ... IF one has lost the state of justification after the Sacrament of Baptism. Having lost one's baptismal innocence, it does not suffice merely to make an act of perfect contrition, but one must intend to go to the Sacrament of Confession.

While almost none of us is like St. Therese, who never committed a mortal sin, children who are baptized and die before the age of reason, or those who, say, are baptized on their deathbed and commit no additional mortal sin ... they do not require the Sacrament of Confession for justification or salvation.

Soubirous · « **Reply #33 on:** February 25, 2024, 12:04:04 PM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 25, 2024, 11:27:18 AM

I linked to that blog post because of its relevance to this thread, not as a citation of Matheson as a theological authority. The blog post corroborates DR's point, and backs it up with theological authorities. I found it particularly interesting that the sacrament of penance is necessary by a necessity of means. I've seen and heard people say it was only a necessity of precept, and used to think the same. But now that I think about it, I've never seen a Catholic source of any authority say it was only necessary by a necessity of precept.

If only that were what the article actually said. The title gives it away: "A Necessary Dilemma: Rejecting Baptism of Desire Requires Rejecting Perfect Contrition."

It goes far beyond the necessity of Baptism and Penance (i.e., the subject line). Is the premise of the title of that article an argument that is to be accepted in this thread? If so, then I'd ask that the case be made first that Perfect Contrition is fully equivalent to the Sacrament of Penance not simply in its efficacy per se for salvation (no argument there), but also in the necessary dispositions and the actual conditions under which Perfect Contrition can be safely relied upon. We were taught as children to be very cautious in such an assumption. We've been taught further that, when the unavoidable time comes for each of us, we are not to presume in vain that we will have the individual capacity for Perfect Contrition.

I'm not getting into theological discussions. I'm getting into the slippery slope that has put countless souls in danger during the past half century. How many families, how many people at the end of life, have dismissed the need for Extreme Unction? How many have a foolish grasp of what Perfect Contrition really is?

Below, the article's conclusions:

Quote

Apparent Contradictions
It would, then, appear to be a heresy and direct contradiction of the Council of Trent to say a baptized person in mortal sin is able to be justified without actually receiving the sacrament of penance. But if this is a real contradiction, then we find ourselves in a predicament. For both the council and the council’s catechism explicitly teach that, despite the necessity of penance, perfect contrition may be substituted for it.
Quote
“The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament 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.”
Quote
“The form of a sacrament signifies what the sacrament accomplishes: these words “I absolve thee” signify the accomplishment of absolution from sin through the instrumentality of this sacrament: they therefore constitute its form….This form is not less true, when pronounced by the priest over him, who by means of perfect contrition, has already obtained the pardon of his sins. Perfect contrition, it is true, reconciles the sinner to God, but his justification is not to be ascribed to perfect contrition alone, independently of the desire which it includes of receiving the sacrament of penance.”
How could the Council of Trent have declared that the sacrament of penance is necessary for all baptized persons who fall into mortal sin, as necessary as baptism is for those not yet baptized, and that it is anathema to say such a person is able to be justified without the sacrament of penance, but then apparently contradict itself by teaching that such a person can be justified without having actually received the sacrament of penance?

This apparent contradiction is resolved by understanding that when the Council of Trent teaches that a sacrament is necessary for salvation, without which a person can’t be justified, it means the sacrament is necessary, at least in desire, and that without receiving those sacraments “or without the desire of them” a person can’t be justified (Sess. 7, Can. 4). There is, then, no real contradiction between the council’s teaching that a baptized person in mortal sin cannot be justified without the sacrament of penance, and its teaching that such a person can, indeed, be justified without actually having received the sacrament. Likewise, as “the sacrament of penance is as necessary to salvation, as is baptism for those who have not been already baptized” (Sess. 14, Ch. 2), there is no real contradiction between the necessity of baptism and the doctrine of baptism of desire.

If we insist that the necessity of baptism entails that salvation cannot possibly be attained without actually receiving the sacrament, then we must hold the same with regard to the necessity of the sacrament of penance for those in mortal sin after baptism. If it’s not possible for someone with the desire for baptism to be saved if they do not actually receive the sacrament before death, then it’s not possible for a baptized person in mortal sin to be saved without actually receiving the sacrament of penance before death, no matter how perfect their contrition may be. If the doctrine of baptism of desire contradicts the necessity of baptism, then the doctrine of perfect contrition contradicts the necessity of penance. If we reject the one, we must reject the other.

This latter part of the article is not an argument from the Doctors of the Church. This proposition appears to be no more than a layman's leap in a random personal blog. That's why I've asked what credentials this author has to be arguing such a premise. Are there any other traditional Catholic clergy or trained theologians who've claimed this very same thing?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** February 25, 2024, 12:15:50 PM »

That's a total lie/fabrication that perfect contrition is a "substitute" for the Sacrament of Confession, and is directly contradicted from the citation from Trent. One must intend to go to Confession at the next opportunity. There's no such thing as a "perfect contrition" that restores to a state of justification without the intention to go to Confession. Now, Trent adds the phrase about opportunity because it's not necessary to rouse a priest at 3AM to confession immediately after said "perfect contrition", but, say, the next time there are confessions scheduled. But Trent clearly teaches that there is no justification due to perfect contrition alone with the Sacrament of Confession being required, saltem voto, at least in intention. Here's a simple case. Someone makes a perfect act of contrition, with true sorrow for one's sins because they offend God and out of love for God, but then decides he doesn't want to go to Confession, for whatever reason ... too much trouble, embarrassment, etc.

And the claim of an analogy between that and the Sacrament of Baptism is completely false, as Trent explicitly states that there are significant differences between the Sacraments. First and foremost, the Sacrament of Baptism imparts a character and makes someone a member of the Church, whereas the Sacrament of Confession applies only to those who already have the Baptismal character.

Who is this Matheson bozo ... who clearly demonstrates a lack of even the basic distinctions involved here?

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #35 on:** February 25, 2024, 01:21:11 PM »

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/

SESSION 7, CANON 4 ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL

Before we conclude, let’s quickly address the one other passage in all the councils of the Church that the supporters of baptism of desire point to. Like their arguments about Sess 6, Chap. 4, their argument about this passage fails as well.

Quote

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novae Legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua, et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: an. s.

Some think that this supports the idea of baptism of desire, but it doesn’t at all. The canon condemns the position that people obtain justification without the sacraments or the desire for them by faith alone. That doesn’t contradict the position of Catholics such as ourselves, who reject baptism of desire. We don’t believe that people can be justified without the sacraments or without the desire for them by faith alone. Thus, the canon doesn’t contradict the absolute necessity of baptism at all. The reason that it mentions without them or a desire of them is that it’s referring to justification and the sacraments in general. Properly speaking, a person can only be saved once. However, it’s possible for a person to be justified more than once.
For example, a person could fall into grave sin after baptism but recover that justification through perfect contrition and the desire for the Sacrament of Penance. Since the recovery of justification can occur through perfect contrition and the desire for the Sacrament of Penance without the sacrament actually being received, this canon on the sacraments in general and justification makes room for that possibility and includes the words “a desire of them” in reference to justification. But notice that it did not say: “if anyone says that the sacraments of the new law or the desire of them are not necessary for salvation”. No, it simply said: “if anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation.” But it made it clear that people don’t need to receive all the sacraments to be saved. The Sacraments in general are truly said to be necessary for salvation because you must receive at least one sacrament, namely baptism, to be saved. So, this canon does not at all teach baptism of desire. In fact, in the profession of faith promulgated by the same Council of Trent, we find this stated:

Quote

Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…”

Notice that the language about the necessity of the sacraments in general here is similar to what is stated in Sess 7, Can. 4, but what don’t we find? We don’t find any reference to “or the desire for them”. Why? The reason is that there is no mention of justification in this passage but only of salvation. Since a baptized person can recover justification by perfect contrition plus the desire for penance, there are instances in which an already baptized person who has fallen into grave sin can be justified by the desire for the Sacrament of Penance without actually receiving it. But even if that person is saved he would not be saved without the sacraments in general, having already received the Sacrament of Baptism.
Thus, since Sess 7, Can. 4 was covering justification and the sacraments in general, as well as salvation, it included “or a desire for them” in reference to justification to cover that possibility. But in the aforementioned statement of the profession of faith, which only mentioned salvation, there is no mention of desire but only that the sacraments are necessary, with the clarification that one need not receive all the sacraments. Thus, no one can be saved without incorporation into the sacramental system through baptism.

A DEVASTATING QUOTE FROM TRENT’S SESSION 7

This is further confirmed by what Trent says in the Foreword to Sess. 7 of the Council of Trent’s Decree on the Sacraments.

Quote

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Foreword, ex cathedra: “For the completion of the salutary doctrine of Justification… it has seemed fitting to treat of the most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased or being lost is restored.”
Ad consummationem salutaris de justificatione doctrinae… consentaneum visum est, de sanctissimis Ecclesiae sacramentis agere, per quae omnis vera justitia vel incipit, vel coepta augetur, vel amissa reparatur.

The Council of Trent here teaches that all true justice (sanctifying grace) either begins or is increased or is restored at the sacraments. This means that all true justice must be at least one of the three: begun at the sacraments, increased at the sacraments, or restored at the sacraments. But the baptism of desire theory is that some people can have a true justice (sanctifying grace) that is none of the above three! They argue that some persons can have true justice that is: 1) not begun at the sacraments, but before; and 2) not increased at the sacraments (since the person dies before getting to the sacraments); and 3) not restored at the sacraments (for the same reason as # 2). Thus, the “baptism of desire” theory posits a true justice which is neither begun nor increased nor restored at the sacraments. But such an idea is contrary to the above teaching of Trent, and therefore the “justice” which they posit cannot be true justice. This shows again that baptism of desire is not a true teaching, but a false teaching that contradicts infallible Catholic truth.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #36 on:** February 25, 2024, 01:23:01 PM »

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 22, 2024, 09:34:00 AM

The Catechism of the Council of Trent also confirms that the Council taught that for those who fall into sin after baptism, the sacrament of penance is as necessary to salvation as baptism is for those who haven't been baptized.

That St. Bonaventure text you linked to is interesting. There's also another post on that blog that's relevant to this topic:

https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2023/09/08/a-necessary-dilemma-rejecting-baptism-of-desire-requires-rejecting-perfect-contrition/

TRENT ON NECESSITY OF PENANCE VS. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
Now some people point to Trent’s statement in Sess. 14, Chap. 2, where it says that the Sacrament of Penance is necessary for those who have fallen as baptism itself is for those not yet regenerated.

Quote

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance: “This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”

They argue that since the grace of Penance can be attained by the desire for it plus perfect contrition in the absence of the Sacrament, that applies to baptism as well. But that argument fails because in the very same decree Trent adds that people can be justified before the Sacrament of Penance is actually received by perfect contrition and the desire for the Sacrament of Penance, but Trent nowhere says the same about baptism.

Quote

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

The argument also fails because one cannot have perfect contrition until one is regenerated or born of God in baptism (1 John 4:7).
In fact, Trent teaches three different times (Sess. 6, Chap. 14; Sess. 14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can suffice for justification, but nowhere did it teach the same about baptism, although it could have if baptism of desire were a true doctrine. So, taken in context Trent does not equate the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #37 on:** February 25, 2024, 01:31:20 PM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 25, 2024, 01:21:11 PM

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/

Any takers? I predict not, because the fact that professions of faith that speak of salvation and not justification only do not include "...or the desire for them" completely destroys this false argument.

I also predict no one will even attempt to explain how can all justice begin at the sacraments when all admit Baptism of Man's Own Will is not a sacrament.

One more prediction, the debate on this topic will always focus on the BoDer nonsense arguments and the clear-cut unassailable proofs such as Pope St.Leo the Great's dogmatic tome to Flavian will continue to be ignored.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/pope-leo-the-great-water-baptism/

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

No need to explain anything, just receive and accept the teaching of the Magisterium.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** February 25, 2024, 02:08:37 PM »

Hi, Marulus .... can't read your white font

. Perhaps people with better eyesight, but not I.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** February 25, 2024, 02:10:15 PM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 25, 2024, 01:31:20 PM

I also predict no one will even attempt to explain how can all justice begin at the sacraments when all admit Baptism of Man's Own Will is not a sacrament.

Yeah, that's one of the most serious problems with BoD, where it turns justification/salvation into an ex opere operantis operation and really is semi-Pelagian at least.

Soubirous · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2024, 03:09:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2024, 02:08:37 PM

Hi, Marulus .... can't read your white font . Perhaps people with better eyesight, but not I

[ FIFY, copy/paste then use the font color function, which is found above the swinging thurible emoji.]

Quote

TRENT ON NECESSITY OF PENANCE VS. NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

Now some people point to Trent’s statement in Sess. 14, Chap. 2, where it says that the Sacrament of Penance is necessary for those who have fallen as baptism itself is for those not yet regenerated.
Quote
Quote
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance: “This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”

They argue that since the grace of Penance can be attained by the desire for it plus perfect contrition in the absence of the Sacrament, that applies to baptism as well. But that argument fails because in the very same decree Trent adds that people can be justified before the Sacrament of Penance is actually received by perfect contrition and the desire for the Sacrament of Penance, but Trent nowhere says the same about baptism.
Quote
Quote
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

The argument also fails because one cannot have perfect contrition until one is regenerated or born of God in baptism (1 John 4:7).
In fact, Trent teaches three different times (Sess. 6, Chap. 14; Sess. 14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can suffice for justification, but nowhere did it teach the same about baptism, although it could have if baptism of desire were a true doctrine. So, taken in context Trent does not equate the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance.

Soubirous · « **Reply #41 on:** February 25, 2024, 03:17:10 PM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 25, 2024, 01:31:20 PM

Any takers? I predict not, because the fact that professions of faith that speak of salvation and not justification only do not include "...or the desire for them" completely destroys this false argument.

I also predict no one will even attempt to explain how can all justice begin at the sacraments when all admit Baptism of Man's Own Will is not a sacrament.

One more prediction, the debate on this topic will always focus on the BoDer nonsense arguments and the clear-cut unassailable proofs such as Pope St.Leo the Great's dogmatic tome to Flavian will continue to be ignored.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/pope-leo-the-great-water-baptism/

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

No need to explain anything, just receive and accept the teaching of the Magisterium.

[Font of the quoted section fixed from white to black.]

Soubirous · « **Reply #42 on:** February 25, 2024, 07:41:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2024, 12:15:50 PM

That's a total lie/fabrication that perfect contrition is a "substitute" for the Sacrament of Confession, and is directly contradicted from the citation from Trent. One must intend to go to Confession at the next opportunity. There's no such thing as a "perfect contrition" that restores to a state of justification without the intention to go to Confession. Now, Trent adds the phrase about opportunity because it's not necessary to rouse a priest at 3AM to confession immediately after said "perfect contrition", but, say, the next time there are confessions scheduled. But Trent clearly teaches that there is no justification due to perfect contrition alone with the Sacrament of Confession being required, saltem voto, at least in intention. Here's a simple case. Someone makes a perfect act of contrition, with true sorrow for one's sins because they offend God and out of love for God, but then decides he doesn't want to go to Confession, for whatever reason ... too much trouble, embarrassment, etc.

There's the Saint Jean Vianney anecdote of the grieving widow of the man who jumped off a bridge to his death. The good Curé d'Ars told her that the husband had managed a perfect contrition in the split second before drowning. His very last sin by definition gave no opportunity for Confession.

Yet that case seems to speak more to the virtue of hope (as a unique and sudden example of final perseverance) than to perfect contrition as a generalizable fallback for any except the most unusual situations. (Or imagine a seemingly comatose apostate unable to communicate his final wishes but lucid enough interiorly to desire repentance sincerely for all the right reasons other than fear of damnation.)

Possible perhaps with God's mercy, but to lasso outliers and attempt to construct an entire teaching around these without the necessary qualifiers? Saint Jean Vianney had the rare grace of being able to read souls. The rest of us don't.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** February 26, 2024, 06:14:57 AM »

Quote from: Soubirous on February 25, 2024, 07:41:16 PM

There's the Saint Jean Vianney anecdote of the grieving widow of the man who jumped off a bridge to his death. The good Curé d'Ars told her that the husband had managed a perfect contrition in the split second before drowning. His very last sin by definition gave no opportunity for Confession.

Yet that case seems to speak more to the virtue of hope (as a unique and sudden example of final perseverance) than to perfect contrition as a generalizable fallback for any except the most unusual situations. (Or imagine a seemingly comatose apostate unable to communicate his final wishes but lucid enough interiorly to desire repentance sincerely for all the right reasons other than fear of damnation.)

Possible perhaps with God's mercy, but to lasso outliers and attempt to construct an entire teaching around these without the necessary qualifiers? Saint Jean Vianney had the rare grace of being able to read souls. The rest of us don't.

What are you talking about? Neither I nor Trent said anything about having the actual opportunity to go to Confession, but intend to go to Confession at the next available opportunity (if one were to present itself). It means that in addition to his act of perfect contrition on his way down, he could just as easily have also thought that he wished he could have a priest to confess to.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #44 on:** February 26, 2024, 06:56:07 AM »

Quote from: Soubirous on February 25, 2024, 12:04:04 PM

If only that were what the article actually said. The title gives it away: "A Necessary Dilemma: Rejecting Baptism of Desire Requires Rejecting Perfect Contrition."

It goes far beyond the necessity of Baptism and Penance (i.e., the subject line). Is the premise of the title of that article an argument that is to be accepted in this thread? If so, then I'd ask that the case be made first that Perfect Contrition is fully equivalent to the Sacrament of Penance not simply in its efficacy per se for salvation (no argument there), but also in the necessary dispositions and the actual conditions under which Perfect Contrition can be safely relied upon. We were taught as children to be very cautious in such an assumption. We've been taught further that, when the unavoidable time comes for each of us, we are not to presume in vain that we will have the individual capacity for Perfect Contrition.

I'm not getting into theological discussions. I'm getting into the slippery slope that has put countless souls in danger during the past half century. How many families, how many people at the end of life, have dismissed the need for Extreme Unction? How many have a foolish grasp of what Perfect Contrition really is?

If we insist that the necessity of baptism entails that salvation cannot possibly be attained without actually receiving the sacrament, then we must hold the same with regard to the necessity of the sacrament of penance for those in mortal sin after baptism. If it’s not possible for someone with the desire for baptism to be saved if they do not actually receive the sacrament before death, then it’s not possible for a baptized person in mortal sin to be saved without actually receiving the sacrament of penance before death, no matter how perfect their contrition may be. If the doctrine of baptism of desire contradicts the necessity of baptism, then the doctrine of perfect contrition contradicts the necessity of penance. If we reject the one, we must reject the other.

This latter part of the article is not an argument from the Doctors of the Church. This proposition appears to be no more than a layman's leap in a random personal blog. That's why I've asked what credentials this author has to be arguing such a premise. Are there any other traditional Catholic clergy or trained theologians who've claimed this very same thing?

You're tilting at a windmill you've thought up into a dragon. Wrong fight, wrong battle.

The article is simply making the logical and sound argument that if you reject the possibility of a BoD you are rejecting the possibility of a cleansing by grace sufficient for heaven by a desire for penance before it is received. The analogy between baptism and penance in terms of necessity is laid out in the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, the Holy Office Letter - for examples.

The article is directed at the theological position that rejects the possibility of a BoD when the sacrament cannot be recieved by one with the intention, contrition and faith to receive it. No other position beyond that is advanced.

Again, the article apparently is triggering demons of liberalism in your mind, and you unjustifiably attack it.

Quote

This latter part of the article is not an argument from the Doctors of the Church. This proposition appears to be no more than a layman's leap in a random personal blog. That's why I've asked what credentials this author has to be arguing such a premise. Are there any other traditional Catholic clergy or trained theologians who've claimed this very same thing?

The "layman" is a man; men are rational and capable of logical thought; the "layman" advances a logical and sound argument. If you have an issue with its logic, as another man presumably capable of rational and hence logical thought, demolish its logic, likewise making reference to the sources he mentions on the comparable necessity of the sacraments of baptism and penance, etc. Judge the merits of the argument. I suspect you can't, that's why you bring up, "credentials."

Here, go ahead, pick the poor brother "layman" all twisted up on the pavement and crippled from his "leap":

Quote

If we insist that the necessity of baptism entails that salvation cannot possibly be attained without actually receiving the sacrament, then we must hold the same with regard to the necessity of the sacrament of penance for those in mortal sin after baptism. If it’s not possible for someone with the desire for baptism to be saved if they do not actually receive the sacrament before death, then it’s not possible for a baptized person in mortal sin to be saved without actually receiving the sacrament of penance before death, no matter how perfect their contrition may be. If the doctrine of baptism of desire contradicts the necessity of baptism, then the doctrine of perfect contrition contradicts the necessity of penance. If we reject the one, we must reject the other.

In addition to a simply smiley emoticon option, we need a "whistling in the dark" one, too.

This is the second time you've done this in this thread, Soubirous, taking shots redolent of theology while "not commeting" on the theology or "not getting into theological discussions."

Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments (Read 20047 times)

Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Joe Cupertino

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Marulus Fidelis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Marulus Fidelis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Marulus Fidelis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

DecemRationis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments