Council of Trent, Session VII (March 3, 1547)
Canons on the Sacraments in General
847 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.
Denzinger - English translation, older numbering (patristica.net) (https://www.patristica.net/denzinger/)
847 Can. 4. 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.
Full text of "Denzinger Schönmetzer - Enchiridion Symbolorum 1957" (archive.org) (https://archive.org/stream/denzinger-schonmetzer-enchiridion-symbolorum-1957/Denzinger Schönmetzer - Enchiridion Symbolorum 1957_djvu.txt)
Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism
858 Can. 2. 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.
858 Can. 2. Si quis dixerit, aquam veram et naturalem non esse de necessitate baptismi, atque ideo
verba illa Domini nostri Iesu Christi: "Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto' (Jo 3, 5) ad
metaphoram aliquam detorserit: an. s.
861 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema [cf. n.796 ].
861 Can. 5. Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem : an. s. (cf.
DS 1524)
* The "cf." section -
796 In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the "adoption of the sons" [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [John 3:5].
1524 796 Cap. 4. Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in
quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et 'adoptionis filiorum' (Rom 8,15) Dei, per
secundum Adam lesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium
promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est:
"Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei' (Jo 3,5).
Session XIV
Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance
Chap. 2 - The Difference Between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism
. . . This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those as yet not regenerated [can. 6].
. . . Est autem hoc sacramentum paenitentiae lapsis post baptismum ad salutem necessarium, ut nondum regeneratis ipse baptismus (can.6).
Canons on the Sacrament of Penance
916 Can. 6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was either instituted by divine law or is necessary for salvation; or says that the manner of secretly confessing to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is alien to the institution and the mandate of Christ, and is a human invention: let him be anathema [cf.n. 899 f.].
916 Can. 6. Si quis negaverit, confessionem sacramentalem vel institutam vel ad salutem necessariam esse iure divino; aut dixerit, modum secrete confitendi soli sacerdoti, quem Ecelesia
catholica ab initio semper observavit et observat, alienum esse ab institutione et mandato Christi, et inventum esse humanum: an. s. (cf. DS 1679ss).
*The note reference (which indicates "and following") -
899 From the institution of the sacrament of penance as already explained the universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by our Lord, [Jas. 5:16; John 1:9; (Luke 17:14)], and by divine law is necessary for all who have fallen after baptism [can. 7] . . .
917 Can. 7. If anyone says that in the sacrament of penance it is not necessary by divine law for the remission of sins to confess each and all mortal sins, of which one has remembrance after a due and diligent examination, even secret ones and those which are against the two last precepts of the decalogue, and the circuмstances which alter the nature of sin; but that this confession is useful only for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, and formerly was observed only for imposing a canonical satisfaction; or says, that they who desire to confess all their sins wish to leave nothing to be pardoned by divine mercy; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins: let him be anathema [cf. n. 899-901 ]
1679 899 Ex institutione sacramenti paenitentiae iam explicata universa Ecclesia semper intellexit, institutam etiam esse a Domino integram peccatorum confessionem (cf. Iac 5, 16;1 Jo 1, 9 (Lc 17, 14)), et
omnibus post baptismum lapsis iure divino necessariam exsistere (can. 7) . . .
1707 917 Can. 7. Si quis dixerit, in sacramento paenitentiae ad remissionem peccatorum necessarium non esse iure divino confiteri omnia et singula peccata mortalia, quorum memoria cuм debita et diligenti
praemeditatione habeatur, etiam occulta, et quae sunt contra duo ultima decalogi praecepta, et circuмstantias, quae peccati speciem mutant; sed eam confessionem tantum esse utilem ad erudiendum et
consolandum paenitentem, et olim observatam fuisse tantum ad satisfactionem canonicam imponendam; aut dixerit, eos, qui omnia peccata confiteri student, nihil relinquere velle divinae misericordiae
ignoscendum; aut demum non licere confiteri peccata venialia : an. s. (cf. DS 1679ss).
Trent says the SACRAMENT of baptism is necessary for salvation. This is doctrine. There’s no interpretation required. God's truths are simple; He speaks to us, through His Church, plainly and clearly. God cannot deceive nor be deceived and neither does doctrine, which is Divine Truth.
While due to a lack of formation and knowledge, I don't have much to add on this topic. Reading the OP have me a bit of a "lightbulb moment". Many people who have rebutted the Dimonds have pointed out that they take John 3:5 literally but, apply some interpretation to John 6:53, Fr. Jenkins even accusing them of acting like "quintessential modernists", it just struck me that by definition Baptism is more important for Salvation than the Eucharist because you need it first. You can't even have the opportunity to avoid the Eucharist if you aren't Baptised. In addition, no one who has a "Baptism of Desire" ever had the Eucharist (unless they were Eastern "Orthodox"). So, if one wants to advocate for BoD, they have to acknowledge that John 6:53 cannot be taken literally either."I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death
Most people probably already know this but, I thought I would post it just because of how much it "clicked".
While due to a lack of formation and knowledge, I don't have much to add on this topic. Reading the OP have me a bit of a "lightbulb moment". Many people who have rebutted the Dimonds have pointed out that they take John 3:5 literally but, apply some interpretation to John 6:53, Fr. Jenkins even accusing them of acting like "quintessential modernists", it just struck me that by definition Baptism is more important for Salvation than the Eucharist because you need it first. You can't even have the opportunity to avoid the Eucharist if you aren't Baptised. In addition, no one who has a "Baptism of Desire" ever had the Eucharist (unless they were Eastern "Orthodox"). So, if one wants to advocate for BoD, they have to acknowledge that John 6:53 cannot be taken literally either.
Most people probably already know this but, I thought I would post it just because of how much it "clicked".
"Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get
into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people
off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good
fight and preserves the Faith." - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life
"I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death
as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again
– he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by
water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get
into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people
off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good
fight and preserves the Faith." - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life
Is anyone aware of any Magisterial texts beyond those I posted which discuss the necessity of the sacraments?
Thanks.
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/letter-of-pope-siricius-to-bishop.html
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
LATIN: “Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.
“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, 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.”
Quicuмque etiam discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.”
Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Baptism Of Adults
With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.
They Should Not Delay Their Baptism Unduly
If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism. Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.
They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.
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, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once
Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.
Many people who have rebutted the Dimonds have pointed out that they take John 3:5 literally but, apply some interpretation to John 6:53 ...
Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”
Pope Siricius speaks of infants, and the aforementioned are like infants in that the receipt of the sacrament is absolutely necessary for them, just as it is for infants.
That's hogwash. Catholic theologians have always held the Sacrament of Baptism to be necessary by necessity of means and the Holy Communion to be necessary by necessity of precept and by moral necessity. You can find that treated succinctly in the Catholic Encyclopedia and anywhere else. This isn't "the Dimonds".
Reply Obj. 4. The last objection has already been resolved: for it is called a necessary sacrament, not because without it a man cannot be saved, but because he is bound to it if he can, and neglecting it, he cannot be saved.
https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2024/01/01/st-bonaventure-on-those-who-receive-only-the-reality-of-baptism/
Nice try, but Pope St. Siricius is not speaking of only those who have the improper dispositions for the Sacrament, but clearly states that each and every one of those desiring Baptism would forfeit the Kingdom without the Sacrament, not just those who are ill disposed.
First, I think the "necessary by necessity of means" needs to be scrutinized, and that the point of looking at actual Magisterial statements. What exactly does that mean?
Terms are well understood and clearly defined by Catholic theologians. Baptism they hold to be necessary by absolute necessity of means. Not by necessity of precept, not by a relative necessity.
Don't look under the hood, in other words.
Nice try, but Pope St. Siricius is not speaking of only those who have the improper dispositions for the Sacrament, but clearly states that each and every one of those desiring Baptism would forfeit the Kingdom without the Sacrament, not just those who "lack perfect contrition".
“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, 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.”
Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church."
You're only trying to "look under the hood" because you're trying to deny the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation (as defined as entry into the Kingdom, i.e. the Beatific Vision).
You're best off simply holding, as the Doctors did, that the necessity of Sacrament can be salvaged even in cases where it can be received in votum, where it's still the Sacrament of Baptism acting as the instrumental cause of salvation, operating through the votum to receive it.
Absolute Necessity of means refers to the fact that something is a sine qua non for something else, where something (in this case salvation) cannot be achieved by any other means. Even the Catechism of St. Pius X answers that the Sacrament of Baptism is "absolutely necessary" for salvation.
Reply Obj. 4. The last objection has already been resolved: for it is called a necessary sacrament, not because without it a man cannot be saved, but because he is bound to it if he can, and neglecting it, he cannot be saved.
https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2024/01/01/st-bonaventure-on-those-who-receive-only-the-reality-of-baptism/
You're only trying to "look under the hood" because you're trying to deny the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation (as defined as entry into the Kingdom, i.e. the Beatific Vision).
JoeZ,
Thank you for the quote. There is no doubt that among those who die during instruction before receiving baptism there would be - indeed, I would say the vast majority - those who do not have the faith and heigh level of contrition (probably would need to be "perfect" contrition) to be justified by their vow or desire for the sacrament. To those indeed the sacrament would be necessary, as the sacrament of penance is necessary for those who have, say imperfect contrition for sins committed - the imperfect contrition is enough for the justification of the sacrament of penance, but not for the justification before receipt of the sacrament that comes by way of perfect contrition. Think about it: obviously someone who is justified in the sacrament of penance via an imperfect contrition didn't have perfect contrition before the sacrament.
I would say it is the same regarding baptism. There are those who come to the fount like those who come to the sacrament of penance with imperfect contrition: they would not justified without the sacrament. For them, the receipt of the sacrament is a necessity.
Pope Siricius speaks of infants, and the aforementioned are like infants in that the receipt of the sacrament is absolutely necessary for them, just as it is for infants. They are therefore spoken of collectively by the pope, and for both alike the sacraments are necessary. Remember the language in the Catechism of Trent:
This is consistent with what I am saying. If death is imminent for an adult, mercy says give the sacrament - they may be those who, as I have argued, lack the level of contrition or faith that would "avail them to grace and righteousness," and they would be in the same boat as the infant.
I see an argument against my position by saying that the Catechism implies that a BoD would apply to all catechumen in such circuмstances. But I don't think it can be read that way, and think my analogy to the sacrament of penance applies. As quoted in the op, the Council says that "This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those as yet not regenerated." The same necessity for justification: the actual receipt of the sacrament is necessary for those with imperfect contrition, and I would say the same for some catechumen who do have an imperfect contrition for their past sins. There are some catechumen, I would say, whose "intention and determination" is not perfect and requires the sacrament of baptism.
In sum, I do not think the quotes from Pope Siricius address general sacramental necessity, like Trent does, but a sacramental necessity for those in a certain situation, a dire circuмstance. You don't play "Russian Roulette" and hope those people have "perfect contrition," like you don't delay with infants.
A good quote and very helpful for thinking about this, but I don't see it as having the generality of Trent, or addressing generally the necessity of the sacraments. Pope Siricius is addressing a specific circuмstance in which baptism should not be delayed for adults, which is acknowledged and addressed also in the Catechism of Trent, which talks about BoD or justification by votum with contrition as well.
DR
Baptism Of Adults
With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.
[Emphasis added above.]
A cautionary side comment: Be very careful in the use of analogy. This works only as an illustrative didactic tool where there is a clear correspondence, not where certain attributes of the items being compared might elicit an inapplicable premise.
Penance is Penance. Baptism is Baptism. Penance requires reason and the capacity to accuse oneself in detail after purposeful reflection. This requirement does not apply to Baptism per se, as is obvious in the section from Pope Siricius (emphasis added):
So while I'm not prepared to comment on necessity, I will point again to the problem of desire/intent/votum. It's one thing to discuss the generalities of sacraments, but it's another entirely to impute particular votum and then ride upon that. Votum for Penance is its own thing, and it doesn't serve to explicate desire for Baptism.
"This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those as yet not regenerated."
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/letter-to-the-archbishop-of-boston-2076
Caution is always good.
I follow the lead of a pretty reliable source, the Council of Trent, in looking to penance and baptism together, since Trent uses them analogously, and in the specific context of discussion - sacramental necessity.
Moreover, we are also told in the Holy Office letter:
Again, we have a Magisterial, or at least purported Magisterial, authority using the two sacraments analogously, and in the specific context of sacramental necessity.
Of course there is a difference between the sacraments. If you want to take the difference, apply it to the context of sacramental necessity, and say that the analogy is inapt, by all means go ahead.
It seems apt to me, and to the authors of the HOF and the Fathers of Trent. But perhaps you are on to something.
Shoot.
I see an argument against my position by saying that the Catechism implies that a BoD would apply to all catechumen in such circuмstances. But I don't think it can be read that way, and think my analogy to the sacrament of penance applies.Might someone not already fully adept in that element of the Catechism infer that the analogy in use here is your reading?
It was a cautionary side comment, and it was as to method not as to substance (other than peripherally with regard to distinctions in procedural votum between those two sacraments). As you note above (emphasis added) the parallel is necessity (leaving aside, for the sake of completing this reply, whether that necessity speaks to justification or to salvation).
The ends sought by/for the soul via the two sacraments are the same, yet the means by which a given soul, as catechumen-subsequently-baptized penitent, obtains these ends at two different moments in time are not (re your citation of Pope Siricius regarding adult Baptism). There appears to be little if any question as to what constitutes the sacrament of Penance. There appears to remain some question as to what exactly (once we depart from the usual form and matter) constitutes the sacrament of Baptism.
If A is a discrete set while B is not, then it might be prudent to refrain from stating that A and B in all of their respective attributes (beyond general necessity) are analogous. Otherwise, that would be an opening to avoidable confusion.
As to reliance on Trent, in Reply #13 you said as well:
Might someone not already fully adept in that element of the Catechism infer that the analogy in use here is your reading?
Earlier I also said clearly that I don't pretend to deal with the main topic of sacramental necessity. I leave that to those with the requisite knowledge, whose diligence toward the subject and whose care for the clarity of its treatment I do appreciate.
QuoteQuoteI see an argument against my position by saying that the Catechism implies that a BoD would apply to all catechumen in such circuмstances. But I don't think it can be read that way, and think my analogy to the sacrament of penance applies.
Might someone not already fully adept in that element of the Catechism infer that the analogy in use here is your reading?
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.
The analogous relationship between the sacraments of baptism and penance when it comes to sacramental necessity is expressed directly IMO in both the Council of Trent and Holy Office Letter excerpts I cited.
“Baptism is administered but once, and cannot be repeated; penance may be administered and becomes necessary, as often as we may have sinned after baptism, according to the definition of the Fathers of Trent. ‘For those who fall into sin after baptism,’ say they, ‘the sacrament of penance is as necessary to salvation, as is baptism for those who have not been already baptized’ (Session XIV, Chapter II).”
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/ (https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2023/09/08/a-necessary-dilemma-rejecting-baptism-of-desire-requires-rejecting-perfect-contrition/)
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/ (https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2023/09/08/a-necessary-dilemma-rejecting-baptism-of-desire-requires-rejecting-perfect-contrition/)
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.
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.
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.
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.”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.
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.
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.
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.”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.
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.
:sleep:
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/ (https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2023/09/08/a-necessary-dilemma-rejecting-baptism-of-desire-requires-rejecting-perfect-contrition/)
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.
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).
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.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/
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.
Hi, Marulus .... can't read your white font :laugh1:. Perhaps people with better eyesight, but not I
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.
QuoteQuotePope 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.
QuoteQuotePope 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
Luke 8
4 And when a very great multitude was gathered together, and hastened out of the cities unto him, he spoke by a similitude. 5 The sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
6 And other some fell upon a rock: and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 And other some fell among thorns, and the thorns growing up with it, choked it. 8 And other some fell upon good ground; and being sprung up, yielded fruit a hundredfold. Saying these things, he cried out: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 9 And his disciples asked him what this parable might be. 10 To whom he said: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing may not understand.
11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 And they by the way side are they that hear; then the devil cometh, and taketh the word out of their heart, lest believing they should be saved. 13 Now they upon the rock, are they who when they hear, receive the word with joy: and these have no roots; for they believe for a while, and in time of temptation, they fall away. 14 And that which fell among thorns, are they who have heard, and going their way, are choked with the cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and yield no fruit. 15 But that on the good ground, are they who in a good and perfect heart, hearing the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit in patience.
The claim of an analogy regarding sacramental necessity between baptism and penance is made by the Council of Trent, the Catechism, the Holy Office Letter of 1949, etc.
If the Council is wrong, if the "bozo" who draws the conclusion from the Trentian analogy is wrong, why don't you show us?
:sleep:
Lapide:
Ver. 43.—And Jesus said unto him. Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise. That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in the beatitude and beatific vision of God, i.e. To-day I will make thee for ever happy; I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with me this day. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Lect. c. 13); S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latrone); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Serm. on the Resurrection); S. Augustine (Tract. 111 on John). He explains paradise by heaven, that is celestial beatitude. It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven. For where Christ is, there is paradise; where, the vision and beatitude of God, there, heaven. For, as to what Euthymius and other Greeks say, denying that the souls of the saints see God before the judgment and are happy: by paradise they understand an earthly place; that to which Enoch was carried. But it cannot be so—for it is of the faith that Christ, shortly after His death went down in infernum—that is, the limbus of the Fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise. It is, moreover, uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining. But grant that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only. Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, Calvin, and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but there behold God, and are beatified by a vision of Him.
Marulus:
The bolded could be understood to mean, as you seem to understand it, that the thief went alone to heaven, but it could also be understood rightly, in context, to mean that neither Christ nor the thief went immediately to heaven. That is why the sentence continues to immediately explain how the thief experienced paradise in the Limbus Patrum.
Your reading comprehension is lacking, Lapide agrees with us and the Dimonds.
It's one thing to say you reject BoD, against the doctors, theologians, catechisms, etc. since at least Trent. But the arrogance, the snooze emoticons, the claims of heresy that certain anti-BoDers exhibit . . . I for one find it insufferable.
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.
Yes, perfectly clear.
The point was to place into contrast St. Jean Vianney's ability to know the state of the particular deceased's soul, a gift that Our Lord does not necessarily bestow upon freelance laymen bloggers and their anonymous forum boosters.
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.
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":
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."
:facepalm:
No, it wasn't clear. You appeared to be contrasting it with Trent's teaching that the intention / will to confess one's sins when the opportunity arises can restore a soul to the state of justification.
Yeah, well . . . are your posts here in the same vein of Cornelius a Lapide not saying that St. Dismas went to heaven before our Lord here:This is what you said to me last time after I honestly assessed how Lapide's quote can be understood in the English provided:
It's one thing to say you reject BoD, against the doctors, theologians, catechisms, etc. since at least Trent. But the arrogance, the snooze emoticons, the claims of heresy that certain anti-BoDers exhibit . . . I for one find it insufferable.
I don't want to be hard on you Marulus; we can respectfully disagree, and you of course can make whatever rational argument you want. But the arrogance, sarcasm . . .
:sleep:
Maybe you should get a good alarm clock.
Marulus,
:laugh1::laugh2::jester:
This says it all about the mindset of the cult.I've screenshot this classic. Unbelievable. This is probably the most . . . wow.
Just wow.
I'm very sorry for you.
Try hypnotism maybe . . . but you have to want it.
Wow.And now you have the gall to pretend to be above it all after I post a snoring emoji... Unbelievable.
This is what you said to me last time after I honestly assessed how Lapide's quote can be understood in the English provided:And now you have the gall to pretend to be above it all after I post a snoring emoji... Unbelievable.
Your inability to respond to the debate-ending facts I posted is noted.
Your insistence on denying that Christ is the one to open Heaven for us with His resurrection is noted.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."
Your insistence on denying that Christ is the one to open Heaven for us with His resurrection is noted.
John 21
21 Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. 23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?
But Jesus had not said to him, "He is not to die"; but rather, "if I wish him to remain until I come, what it that to thee?"
No it's not (except maybe in the spurious 1949 letter ... haven't looked at it much in years). Trent explicitly teaches that the Sacrament of Confession, although similar to Baptism in that it results in a soul entering the state of justification, is very different from the Sacrament of Baptism. Your allegation that the Catechism teaches BoD does not mean that there's an equivalence being made, as there's no reference whatsoever in the Catechism to Confession whatsoever in those passages.
“Baptism is administered but once, and cannot be repeated; penance may be administered and becomes necessary, as often as we may have sinned after baptism, according to the definition of the Fathers of Trent. ‘For those who fall into sin after baptism,’ say they, ‘the sacrament of penance is as necessary to salvation, as is baptism for those who have not been already baptized’ (Session XIV, Chapter II).”
He proves himself a bozo in claiming that Trent says that perfect contrition is a "substitute" for the Sacrament of Confession. That's utterly absurd.
61 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema [cf. n.796 ].
861 Can. 5. Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem : an. s. (cf.
DS 1524)
Apology accepted.
I apologize for my prior response. I'm sorry and shouldn't have responded that way.
No, I did not and do not deny that Christ opened heaven for us, and for the OT saints - I said as much in that thread - and even for St. Dismas, who wouldn't be there if not for Christ.
St. Dismas's spirit/soul entering heaven that day upon his demise, before Our Lord returned there in His resurrected body, in accordance with the will of God (and per Christ's promise) does not deny the truth of Christ's opening the door to heaven for all men.
To remain a Feeneyite anti-BoDer, you have to blur lines, reject distinctions, and interpret language and phrases with the intent on proving a point rather than attempting to understand what they mean, particularly in relation to other truths and facts which on the surface, and only on the basis of a superficial and quick reading (that looks to interpret things congenially with one's point of view), seem to indicate a contradiction - like the necessity of the sacrament of baptism and BoD.
If a sincere effort is made to understand, and with more reflection, the contradiction will often disappear.
There's a wonderful few verses near the end of the Gospel of John that says volumes about how we are to read closely and with the precision that the Word of God requires - rather than leaping to assumptions that may (and likely aren't) warranted.
I like the emphasis on the false reading and interpretation by the "brethren" of what Jesus said that is highlighted by the Confraternity translation of verse 23:
St. Dismas in spirit could go to heaven "this day," the day he died, and before Christ's physical ascension, and before the OT saints and the rest of us without making false the teaching that Jesus opening the gate of Heaven for all men.
Exceptions, especially those carved out by God, don't cancel out general rules and truths. The One who gives the rules and truths their general application to begin with can do that.
Apology accepted.
I am sorry for being inflammatory as well.
Let's look at the quote again:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."
So I was reading your response and I was confused how in the world you are reconciling the fact that Christ opened Heaven with His resurrection for every single child of Adam with the notion that St. Dismas entered Heaven before the Resurrection.
But then I got to your last paragraph: Exceptions, especially those carved out by God, don't cancel out general rules and truths.
You freely admit you don't believe that logic applies to theology.
Exceptions, especially those carved out by God, don't cancel out general rules and truths. The One who gives the rules and truths their general application to begin with can do that.
John 6:39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.
John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."
“But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.”
Essentially you're saying that the dogma no one is saved outside the Church still holds true even if there is in fact one really good Jєω who was saved outside the Church.
This is how the Pharisees made void all the commandments of God.
At another point in the Catechism, it states that Our Lord was the first to enter Heaven at His Ascension. I suppose the two could be reconciled in that the gates of Heaven were open after His Resurrection, but all deferred to Our Lord to be the first one to enter. After all, it would be fitting that Our Lord lead them into Heaven and go there first. So I'll have to disagree with Lapide there for about a half dozen reasons.
Why does this even matter? This whole thing started because DR felt that it invalidated something the Dimonds said, even though all the Dimonds said was that the Good Thief (Dismas) was no proof for Baptism of Desire.
And even with regard to their thesis (held, as they demonstrated, by quite a few Church Fathers ... and they missed a solid quote I've seen before from St. Ephrem the Syrian), even if Dismas went to Heaven "that day" (which I think is highly unlikely), that still doesn't preclude his having been baptized first, before entering.
Oh, another problem with Lapide's interpretation, where he claims that Dismas went to Heaven before Our Lord did, Our Lord did say that you will "WITH ME" this day in Paradise, implying that Our Lord would be there also.
Let's just move along here, because the Dismas question is entirely irrelevant.
The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham's bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity.