How do we read Vatican II in the light of tradition that comes out of the Council of Trent?

[Sirach2]

Look again, Trent. I’m not posting new material. I will not provide any further opportunities for you to tear down our Church. If you don’t use it here, you’ll store it in your weaponry to use in other Catholic forums.

If you want to believe that I’m incapable of debating, in your pride, then I’m sure I won’t mind a bit. When I saw what you did with Jimmy Akin, I won’t be a party to your arrows.

 

[Sirach2]

Furthermore, Trent …

Did you notice I was not speaking to you? The addressee was Melchior.

 

[cap76]

Let me bring the subject back to my original question. Only this time, consider it in light of the first anathema recorded by an Apostle. “If any man preaches another Gospel than what I have preached, let him be anathema.” Paul is clearly dealing with matters of doctrine, not desire (certainly not ‘unconscious desire’-whatever that means).

 

[Eufrosnia]

You said you were done and were not going post on the thread any longer, now here you are interjecting at will against your own promise. Your word cannot be trusted even in a small things like this, how can anyone trust your word in greater things?

I’m willing to bet that it is tearing you apart that you cannot find one single dogmatic decree, canon, letter etc… of any kind to back your position but only reference you have is the source of fallible theologians, and at the same time we’re the only ones presenting the dogmatic canons, decrees, letters, etc… as they are.

And no one called Benedict a heretic, only demonstrated that the theological commissions provided by Mel are almost stating exactly what the Pelagians stated and what St. Augustine fought against.

It seems to me that you have an understanding of Church doctrine before Vatican II and also have a way of understanding Church documents of Vatican II.

I think it safe to say that you understand it in a way that seems to contradict each other, yes?

But is it not true that the Church itself is the final interpreter or decider on which understanding is true?

So with respect to the baptism issue, you have one view. The church states another view. The right view is determined by the Church based on its authority, right?

 

[thewanderer]

And the Church has spoken, John 3:5 is to be read as it is written as the Council of Trent declared Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation in the Canons, in previous councils, in previous Papal statements, according to many patristic Fathers and the traditional Church attitude towards Catechumens such as excluding them from the Mass of the Faithful, refusing them Catholic burials, weeping for them for what they have been deprived of and granting them baptism when they are in danger of death since desire is not sufficient as we read,

"Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:

“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”

I would argue this point even further, but for the sake of the debate it is no longer relevant since I forgot that the chapter in Trent we’re discussing excludes infants as we read the very sub-heading “A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.” Can be found as well within the very chapter. “Impious” only pertains to actual sinners, and the very Latin itself used (impii) is too strong to refer to infants. So we see that this chapter is only speaking of those that have capability of desire, and it is dogma according to Pope Innocent III that intent is required for a valid baptism, ergo this chapter is reinforcing the necessity of desire since if that was absent then the baptism would be invalid.

Should we agree with a catechism that states there is no grace outside the Church?

Just asking you to contemplate that with the subject.

The thing is that there is a way of understanding all of those writings which does not contradict the idea of baptism by desire, so, since there is another way of interpreting it the whole crux of this question rests in showing that your understanding of it is the only way to interpret it, which you have not yet done. As I said to TMore, please stop using circular reasoning. I am asking you to prove to me that the passage from Trent must be understood the way you interpret it, and in response you say, well, look at it, it infallibly says what I think it says. You are assuming what I am asking you to prove. This is going to get absolutely nowhere unless you are able to take a step back and realize that you cannot assume that that passage means what you think it does. Your arguments hold no weight if you use circular reasoning, so, if you desire to continue this discussion you will need to stop it.

 

[trent11]

The thing is that there is a way of understanding all of those writings which does not contradict the idea of baptism by desire, so, since there is another way of interpreting it the whole crux of this question rests in showing that your understanding of it is the only way to interpret it, which you have not yet done.

And that would be?

Side note, funny you said it is an “idea.” Notice the ridicule I am facing for not accepting this “idea.”

 

[Melchior_1]

And that would be?

Side note, funny you said it is an “idea.” Notice my ridicule I am facing for not accepting this “idea.”

Might have something to do with the fact you’re breaking away from what the last three Popes and a few Doctors of the Church.

I wouldn’t mind if you answered Eufrosnia’s post.

 

[trent11]

It seems to me that you have an understanding of Church doctrine before Vatican II and also have a way of understanding Church documents of Vatican II.

I think it safe to say that you understand it in a way that seems to contradict each other, yes?

But is it not true that the Church itself is the final interpreter or decider on which understanding is true?

So with respect to the baptism issue, you have one view. The church states another view. The right view is determined by the Church based on its authority, right?

My view is inline with the Church’s view, so I don’t see a contradiction.

 

[Melchior_1]

My view is inline with the Church’s view, so I don’t see a contradiction.

Which mean’s Benedict XVI’s isn’t? Because he does not agree with your views. Neither did Aquinas, JP2, Paul VI, and the Second Vatican Council.

Does this mean both views are acceptable, and we’re talking past each other?

 

[trent11]

Which mean’s Benedict XVI’s isn’t? Because he does not agree with your views. Neither did Aquinas, JP2, Paul VI, and the Second Vatican Council.

Does this mean both views are acceptable, and we’re talking past each other?

Since I am simply holding to the view of what other Doctors, Popes & Saints (and reinforcing that with dogmatic decrees) have taught regarding baptism and desire for it, does that make my position unacceptable? I don’t know if both views are permissible, but I do know that mine cannot be treated as heretical. If I am breaking from what the last three Popes and from novelties of Vat II that does not require my assent, since the only things from Vat II that require my assent are those things that were declared binding, than so be it. I do not agree with JPII’s personalism, is that wrong? I do not agree with St. Aquinas’ teaching of limbo, is that wrong? I think the problem here in this debate is a poor understand of ecclesiology, specifically the Magisterium. Funny enough, theologians of the early 20th century predicted that this would happen.

 

[1AugustSon7]

“or the desire thereof.”

Moreover, simple reason dictates that the people present and commissioned by the Council to interpret and explain its meaning were and are the best source(s) to understanding that Council’s doctrine, and they did all of them explain it in terms of the baptism of desire.

I quote for you the Catechism of the English College at Douai, a Catechism written by the spiritual sons of so many holy martys, for the chilren of the Church who certainly faced martyrdom:

Q. 619. What if a man die for the faith, before he can be baptized?
A. He is a true martyr, and baptized in his own blood.

No sacrament of baptism necessary.

Q. 610. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.

God is truly merciful and gracious indeed; and He wishes for us all to be saved: no man can be deprived of Christ and His grace so long as he has breath in his lungs.

This Catechism, again, was written by the sons of martyrs like Edmund Campion, and written for men and women (children, really) who very probably were to face martyrdom themselves. By no means did the holy Fathers at Douay take lightly their responsibility towards these children of Holy Mother Church, who faced death daily for their faith.

The year was A.D. 1649, not a hundred years past the sacred Council of Trent.

And the Church has spoken, John 3:5 is to be read as it is written as the Council of Trent declared Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation in the Canons, in previous councils, in previous Papal statements, according to many patristic Fathers and the traditional Church attitude towards Catechumens such as excluding them from the Mass of the Faithful, refusing them Catholic burials, weeping for them for what they have been deprived of and granting them baptism when they are in danger of death since desire is not sufficient as we read,

"Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:

“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”

I would argue this point even further, but for the sake of the debate it is no longer relevant since I forgot that the chapter in Trent we’re discussing excludes infants as we read the very sub-heading “A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.” Can be found as well within the very chapter. “Impious” only pertains to actual sinners, and the very Latin itself used (impii) is too strong to refer to infants. So we see that this chapter is only speaking of those that have capability of desire, and it is dogma according to Pope Innocent III that intent is required for a valid baptism, ergo this chapter is reinforcing the necessity of desire since if that was absent then the baptism would be invalid.

Should we agree with a catechism that states there is no grace outside the Church?

Just asking you to contemplate that with the subject.

 

[thewanderer]

And that would be?

Side note, funny you said it is an “idea.” Notice the ridicule I am facing for not accepting this “idea.”

To answer your first question fully would be to jump the gun on the crux of this discussion. I am not trying to put forward a fully worked out position and then defend it, I am trying to go back to the essential point from which people’s views differ and examine it thoroughly. You are still avoiding this part of the question and if I were to try and answer your above question I would distract us too much from the conversation we are already involved in. I am still waiting for either an argument for the necessity of your interpretation or an admission that such an argument does not exist so that we can move on to the stage of discussing probable arguments.

 

[Sirach2]

I commend all who have defended Holy Mother Church, her Popes and her teachings against these insidious attacks from Trent11. God bless you, each and every one!

It has become overtly clear that Trent11 is obtaining his information from MHFM’s website, and he is using every argument from the website here at CAF in this thread. If he is NOT actually Peter Dimond himself, then he is a passionate adherent to his rhetoric. If some did not know, MHFM is a sedevacantist website, as are its owners.

Trent 11’s statements seem to clarify increasingly that he also is of that same mindset and is doing his utmost to convince others here to follow suit. He justifies his dissent to current papal authority using Canon Law’s loophole that he is permitted to do so provided his intent is not malicious.

Trent11:

If I am breaking from what the last three Popes and from novelties of Vat II that does not require my assent, since the only things from Vat II that require my assent are those things that were declared binding, than so be it.

If you read the malicious attacks on the website, you’ll find verbatim everything that Trent11 has proselytized here, including the alleged “24 errors” of St. Thomas Aquinas; *
aut used to mean “and”;
and numerous papal references reposted here identically.

The logical conclusion after following the trajectory of Trent’s posts is that he intends to gain a host of sedevacantist followers. This topic is banned at CAF, so it will be somewhat subtly presented - just a quiet, persistent presentation of MHFM’s theses.*

 

[T_More]

I commend all who have defended Holy Mother Church, her Popes and her teachings against these insidious attacks from Trent11. God bless you, each and every one!

It has become overtly clear that Trent11 is obtaining his information from MHFM’s website, and he is using every argument from the website here at CAF in this thread. If he is NOT actually Peter Dimond himself, then he is a passionate adherent to his rhetoric. If some did not know, MHFM is a sedevacantist website, as are its owners.

Trent 11’s statements seem to clarify increasingly that he also is of that same mindset and is doing his utmost to convince others here to follow suit. He justifies his dissent to current papal authority using Canon Law’s loophole that he is permitted to do so provided his intent is not malicious.

Sirach, you do realize that Melchior provided a link in this very thread to a PDF written by Fr. Cekada, a sedevacantist, to offer as a rebuttal, right?

If you read the malicious attacks on the website, you’ll find verbatim everything that Trent11 has proselytized here, including the alleged “24 errors” of St. Thomas Aquinas; *
aut used to mean “and”;
and numerous papal references* reposted here identically.

The logical conclusion after following the trajectory of Trent’s posts is that he intends to gain a host of sedevacantist followers. This topic is banned at CAF, so it will be somewhat subtly presented - just a quiet, persistent presentation of MHFM’s theses.

Sirach, you do realize that Melchior provided a link in this very thread to a PDF written by Fr. Cekada, a sedevacantist, to offer as a rebuttal, right?

 

[Sirach2]

T More:

Sirach, you do realize that Melchior provided a link in this very thread to a PDF written by Fr. Cekada, a sedevacantist, to offer as a rebuttal, right?

Indeed. However, Fr. Cekada accepts the correct teachings of the very popes that you and Trent misinterpret, despite his being a sedevacantist. It probably was not the best article to rebut you two, but it demonstrates that even a sedevacantist can see the truth, whereas you cannot accept it. Melchior wisely responded using your own logic of these older popes, but presented it in a true light.
Fr. Cekada:

Over the years, I have occasionally encountered traditionalists, lay and clerical, who followed the teachings of the late Rev. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center concerning the axiom “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Those who fully embrace the Feeneyite position reject

the common Catholic teaching about baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Catholics, however, are not free to reject this teaching, because it comes from the Church’s universal ordinary magisterium.Pius IX stated that Catholics are required to believe those teachings that theologians hold “belong to the faith,” and to subject themselves to those forms of doctrine commonly held as “theological truths and conclusions.”

In 1998, I photocopied material on baptism of desire and baptism of blood from the works of twenty-five pre-Vatican II theologians (including two Doctors of the Church), and assembled it into a dossier. All, of course, teach the same doctrine.

Scroll to section III to see their names:

Section III
Pre-Vatican II Theologians Who Teach Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood.
From dossier with 122 pages of photocopied material.
The accompanying table contains a list of pre-Vatican II theologians who teach baptism of desire (=*desiderii, flaminis, in voto, *etc.) and baptism of blood (=sanguinis, martyrii, etc.), together with a page reference to the photocopied dossier I prepared.
Two, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri and St. Robert Bellarmine, are Doctors of the Church.
Many more such theologians can easily be found. These were merely the works in my private library.

 

[Melchior_1]

I understand where some are coming from with this. On one hand, you do have earlier documents that point towards there being no Baptism of desire, some of it very adamantly. On the other hand, you have people who are incredibly orthodox who say that it is a very real possibility, including our current Pontiff.

There is no break in Apostolic Succession, our current Pontiff is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. He has the keys, that is our touchstone, At this point we must assent to the will of our Shepard, and work backwards.

We have our conclusion; Baptism of Desire is acceptable to believe. So now we need to look at how we got there, and why.

 

[T_More]

Melchior, I thank you for your very lucid and intelligent response on this.

NO WHERE have I accused the Church of defecting, or anyone of being a heretic on this thread. My purpose was to show how I myself have found many, MANY contradictions in the past on this very subject, and quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me. I agree, somewhere along the way this teaching that is accepted today sprang up from somewhere. And it is circular, you would have to agree, to simply respond back with, “Well, you just need to read it in light of tradition.” Reading it in light of tradition is what is giving me trouble with this to begin with! I am not the smartest man in the world, but I can see a contradiction when I see one.

Or the offered solution, “Well, the Peter of today says this, so he must be obeyed.” That sounds dangerously like where I came from as a former Jehovah’s Witness. They believe “New Light” theology, which means; what was “old light” from the holy spirit is no longer truth and has been replaced with “new light” truth, even if it contradicts itself. This denies the immutability of God. Truth can of course build upon existing truth, but it cannot contradict.

I will respond a little later with quotes from the earliest apostolic fathers on this subject. Since baptism of desire, baptism of blood, or invincible ignorance cannot can be demonstrated from sacred scripture (I reserve the right to be wrong, as I can find no such evidence), we must then start with them, as they are closest to the “source”. I’ll be back later.

 

[trent11]

To answer your first question fully would be to jump the gun on the crux of this discussion. I am not trying to put forward a fully worked out position and then defend it, I am trying to go back to the essential point from which people’s views differ and examine it thoroughly. You are still avoiding this part of the question and if I were to try and answer your above question I would distract us too much from the conversation we are already involved in. I am still waiting for either an argument for the necessity of your interpretation or an admission that such an argument does not exist so that we can move on to the stage of discussing probable arguments.

I have already presented the argument. Reading Sess. 6 Chap. 4 of Trent “in light of tradition” of the early Church, who obviously believed in the remission of sins and the sanctification of the person did not occur until he or she was actually baptized (even if they desired to be baptized and died without it), the dogma that it is necessary for the person to desire and intend to receive baptism in order to to be a valid baptism and the precedence established that the very same Council and others in the past used “aut” to mean ‘and’ (by examining the context), demands that either this Chapter be read to mean that the impious are required to be baptized and have desire for it for first justification to take place or if either is sufficient than a logical, dogmatic, theological and scriptural argument must be placed forth to demonstrate such to be true. Which is why I asked you to demonstrate, please do so as I am eager to either embrace this line of reasoning and see the truth (which I would do since I have no attachments to my own position) or rebuke it to defend truth.

 

[trent11]

Trent 11’s statements seem to clarify increasingly that he also is of that same mindset and is doing his utmost to convince others here to follow suit. He justifies his dissent to current papal authority using Canon Law’s loophole that he is permitted to do so provided his intent is not malicious.

Loophole? Are you stating that Canon Law is defective?

The logical conclusion after following the trajectory of Trent’s posts is that he intends to gain a host of sedevacantist followers.

Indeed. However, Fr. Cekada accepts the correct teachings of the very popes that you and Trent misinterpret, despite his being a sedevacantist. It probably was not the best article to rebut you two, but it demonstrates that even a sedevacantist can see the truth, whereas you cannot accept it. Melchior wisely responded using your own logic of these older popes, but presented it in a true light.

How inconsistent you are being. You say the trajectory of this debate to bring people into sedevacantism yet most sedevacantists accept baptism of desire & invincible ignorance.

 

[T_More]

As I stated earlier, here are quotes from the apostolic fathers and their successors:

Hermas, 140 A.D., writes:“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”

155 A.D., St. Justin the Martyr writes:“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”

155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr“… hasten to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the inheritance… may be yours. There is no other way than this: acknowledge Christ, **be washed in the washing **announced by Isaias [baptism]…”

180 A.D., St. Irenaeus writes: “… giving the disciples the power of regenerating in God, He said to them: ‘Go teach all nations, and baptize… Just as dry wheat without moisture cannot
become one dough or one loaf, so also, we who are many cannot be made one in Christ Jesus, without the water from heaven…Our bodies achieve unity through the washing… our souls, however, through the Spirit. Both, then, are necessary.”

203 A.D., Tertullian writes:“… it is in fact prescribed that no one can attain to salvation without Baptism, especially in view of that declaration of the Lord, who says: ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life…”

Tertullian writes in 203 A.D.:“A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away … nor can we otherwise be saved, except by permanently abiding in the water.”

Hermas, 140 A.D.: “… before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead.
But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead, and come out of it alive.”

The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 120‐170 A.D.,: “For of those who have **not kept the seal of baptism **he says: ‘Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched.’”

St. Gregory Nyssa, c. 380 A.D.: “Make haste, O sheep, towards the sign of the
cross and the Seal [Baptism] which will save you from your misery!”

Origen, 244 A.D.: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants… there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.”

St. Aphraates, writes in 336 A.D.: “This, then, is faith: that a man believe in God … His Spirit …His Christ… Also, that a man believe in the resurrection of the dead; and moreover, that he believe in the Sacrament of Baptism. This is the belief of the Church of God.”
He also writes:
“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re‐birth.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.: “He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God……if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.”

St. Basil the Great, c. 355 A.D.: “Whence is it that we are Christians? Through faith, all will answer. How are we saved? By being born again in the grace of baptism… For it is the same loss for anyone to depart this life unbaptized, as to receive that baptism from which one thing of what has been handed down has been omitted.”

Pope St. Damasus, 382 A.D.: “This, then, is the salvation of Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and baptized in it…”