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

[T_More]

Now here is St. Ambrose, whom some have used on this thread to prove baptism of desire/blood:

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.: “… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven **except **through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390‐391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common
element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

…and here are his contemporaries:

St. John Chrysostom, 392 A.D.: “Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination, without the seal! … They are outside the royal city…. with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

St Augustine, 395 A.D.: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D.: “Forgiveness of sin is bestowed on us only by the baptism of Christ.”

Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.”

Now, please, for the sake of my sanity, explain to me how I’m supposed to read all this in light of tradition? More later…

 

[Melchior_1]

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.

T More,

I can see how coming from a JW background that hearing some of the rhetoric would be a concern. When teaching the kids at my church, I will flat out tell them that there will be times they struggle with accepting a teaching. That catch is holy obedience; that is there are some things which even if you struggle or disagree, assent is needed provided it doesn’t cause you to sin. Some think birth control is fine, but holy obedience requires them to obey and not use it. These things are dogmatic practices which cannot be revoked.

So the question on the table then becomes; is baptism by water only immutable and can never be changed? It it dogma that it is water only? Frankly, seeing how there was rampant discussion on this even during the time of Aquinas, I’m beginning to think that it isn’t, and this has been something theologians have been discussing for some time. You look at some of the names both sides have been throwing down, those are heavyweight thinkers. If people were not free to think on either side of this coin, wouldn’t one of the sides have been suppressed at this point?

Regarding the Bible, I gave a clear example in the Holy Innocents, however you said they fell under the Old Law. Using the logic of “one must be born under the water”, no one from the Old Law should be in Heaven. The Old Law saved no one, for it needed to be fulfilled by the New Law. Only the baptized, the redeemed get into Heaven, right? And Heaven was only opened through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The way that can be rectified is easy; they were baptized with the blood from the cross.

None of the folks you just qu

 

[Melchior_1]

T More,

I can see how coming from a JW background that hearing some of the rhetoric would be a concern. When teaching the kids at my church, I will flat out tell them that there will be times they struggle with accepting a teaching. That catch is holy obedience; that is there are some things which even if you struggle or disagree, assent is needed provided it doesn’t cause you to sin. Some think birth control is fine, but holy obedience requires them to obey and not use it. These things are dogmatic practices which cannot be revoked.

So the question on the table then becomes; is baptism by water only immutable and can never be changed? It it dogma that it is water only? Frankly, seeing how there was rampant discussion on this even during the time of Aquinas, I’m beginning to think that it isn’t, and this has been something theologians have been discussing for some time. You look at some of the names both sides have been throwing down, those are heavyweight thinkers. If people were not free to think on either side of this coin, wouldn’t one of the sides have been suppressed at this point?

Regarding the Bible, I gave a clear example in the Holy Innocents, however you said they fell under the Old Law. Using the logic of “one must be born under the water”, no one from the Old Law should be in Heaven. The Old Law saved no one, for it needed to be fulfilled by the New Law. Only the baptized, the redeemed get into Heaven, right? And Heaven was only opened through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The way that can be rectified is easy; they were baptized with the blood from the cross.

None of the folks you just qu

I need to preface by saying that, yes, Baptism is essential for salvation. My line of thinking, like the Holy Innocents, is that sometimes the Baptism is done through blood or desire, but has the same effect as water.

I guess I don’t see why God would create a human life only for him/her to be aborted and go to Hell.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

No, you have not presented an argument for necessity, at least, I have pointed out flaws in all the arguments you have so far presented as arguments for necessity and you have so far failed to answer any of them without ultimately referring to the circular reasoning of assuming that your understanding is correct. Please either provide an actual argument for the necessity of your position or admit that you do not have one so that we can begin looking at probable arguments, and in particular, what would make one probable argument more likely than another and what sort of probable argument would be sufficient to demand ones consent. Please note that I laid out this progression much earlier on in this discussion. I am not trying to pull anything over you, nor am I entirely wedded to one view or the other, I tend to disagree with you, but I am not an unreasonable person. All I am trying to do is to get you to follow an intellectual dialogue in an ordered fashion. You are the one who presented a particular statement to be examined. Naturally, I asked you if you have a proof of the necessity of such a statement, I am still waiting for your proof of the necessity of such a statement. We are going around in circles because you have failed to either produce such an argument or else admit that you do not have one. Your arguments cannot be taken seriously until you manage to do one of the above. Since you have failed to do so for such a length of time/conversation I am beginning to doubt that you are actually willing to engage in an honest discussion and am beginning to doubt whether their is any point in spending time discussin this topic with you. I have said multiple times in this thread that I am not trying to push one side or the other, but am merely trying to have an honest discussion about this, I see no point in attempting such a conversation with people who are so clearly unwilling to engage in an honest pursuit of the truth, regardless of where it might lead. Please either provide an argument for the neccessity of your position, or a recognition that you do not have an argument for the necessity of your position but only an argumen for the probability of your argument. If you fail to do this or if you resort to circular reasoning again it will be more than clear that you have no interest in having an honest intellectual discussion and instead you are simply interested in pushing your agenda forward, in which case I see no reason to continue this discussion with you as it is a waste of my time. I am more than willing to have a discussion with people who are honestly seeking the truth, but I am tired of wasting time on people who could care less about the actual truth of the matter and instead only care about being right. I am not asking for much, simply that you either back up your claim (without circular reasoning) that your opinion is necessary, or that you admit that it is not necessary, but merely probably.

 

[trent111]

No, you have not presented an argument for necessity…

I still want to hear that argument that demonstrates non-contradiction, least you wish to horde such knowledge that would benefit me if you are correct.

1. The context is concerning adult justification.
2. We must consider ‘sine’ (without) being used here in the very sentence as a preposition, governing both ‘lavacro’ and ‘voto’ both in the ablative case. It is not stating that justification can happen by this or that, it is stating that it cannot happen without this or that.
3. ‘Aut’ has been used on a consistent basis to mean an inclusive in Church history. So it is not necessary that we interpret it as an exclusive. Romans 1:21 is one example of many.
4. It is at least necessary that we interpret it in an inclusive one way, that if the person being baptized does not desire baptism than the sacramental effect cannot take place even when being baptized, thus an invalid baptism.
5. The following was established to read John 3:5, “as it is written” in this Chapter.
6. John 3:5 reads “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” If we read this verse, “as it is written” then we are see that no one can attain justification without being baptized.
7. Thus we can conclude that this Chapter is concerning adults being justified are required to be baptized and desire it and cannot assert that justification can happen prior to water baptism, for all we need to do is read the previous Chapter:

Who are justified through Christ.

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.

And three Chapters (VII) ahead:

What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.

(Note here that if there was exceptions, such as desire for baptism, this would have been the perfect time to assert it when speaking of Catechumens. We know this Council made exceptions to other things, and asserted them twice concerning the Blessed Virgin and Penance. Not here though…)

 

[trent111]

Regarding the Bible, I gave a clear example in the Holy Innocents, however you said they fell under the Old Law. Using the logic of “one must be born under the water”, no one from the Old Law should be in Heaven. The Old Law saved no one, for it needed to be fulfilled by the New Law. Only the baptized, the redeemed get into Heaven, right? And Heaven was only opened through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The way that can be rectified is easy; they were baptized with the blood from the cross.

newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm#article4

All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:2: “Being justified freely by His grace,” etc.

Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children. received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does not remove a privation save by informing the subject.

Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; 2, 4). But if one consider the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves “thousands of gold and silver” (Psalm 118:72).

We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ’s Passion already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ’s future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Romans 4:11), that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith”: because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ’s Passion, whereas circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof.

 

[Melchior_1]

That’s swell, and all the uncircumcised who were massacred are hooped?

Nice ban dodge, by the way.

 

[Melchior_1]

Something to bear in mind when I mentioned the Holy Innocents; they have a feast day. A feast day, just like Saints do. There’s no “club-med” Heaven for those children, they’re in Heaven in the full presence of God. As I mentioned, only through Christ can we gain entrance into the kingdom of God. Those innocent children needed to have been Baptized somehow.

 

[mgsk]

Not only was baptism not a Church law at that point - indeed, there wasn’t a Church yet - it hadn’t been given as a Divine Command. It simply wasn’t binding. But that’s also why they wouldn’t have gone to Heaven until Jesus released them at the “Harrowing of Hell.”

Things changed after the Old Covenant was replaced. This is why St Thomas said:
“After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ…”.

 

[Melchior_1]

Not only was baptism not a Church law at that point - indeed, there wasn’t a Church yet - it hadn’t been given as a Divine Command. It simply wasn’t binding. But that’s also why they wouldn’t have gone to Heaven until Jesus released them at the “Harrowing of Hell.”

Things changed after the Old Covenant was replaced. This is why St Thomas said:
“After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ…”.

It remains, however, that they still needed to choose Jesus to get into Heaven. That’s no different than those who are baptized.

And if you’re going to quote Thomas, don’t forget to quote the portions were he speaks about being in favor of baptism by desire.

 

[mgsk]

It remains, however, that they still needed to choose Jesus to get into Heaven. That’s no different than those who are baptized.

Yep, but the details of that process probably won’t be made clear to us while we’re still on this side of Eternity.

And if you’re going to quote Thomas, don’t forget to quote the portions were he speaks about being in favor of baptism by desire.

I’ve already said I have no problem with that teaching. I do, however, think people try to apply it far too liberally in recent times. Catechumens aside, I imagine the situation of a person who desires baptism and lives in a state of perfect conformance with charity is a once-or-twice-in-a-century type thing. We see how hard it is even with the aid of the Sacraments.

 

[T_More]

Nice ban dodge, by the way.

Why the remark? Is it really needed?

In regards to the Holy Innocents:

1 Peter 3:

Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, [19] In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

Heaven was not opened as of yet and obviously Christ had not ascended to His Father while He was in the tomb.

 

[Melchior_1]

In regards to the Holy Innocents:

1 Peter 3:

Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, [19] In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:

Heaven was not opened as of yet and obviously Christ had not ascended to His Father while He was in the tomb.

So those souls received the message of Christ and were not baptized with water, but are in Heaven? Meaning that perhaps they received a baptism with different matter, such as desire or blood?

That sort of proves the point, doesn’t it?

Again, as I said before; is baptism by water only immutable and can never be changed? It it dogma that it is water only? Frankly, seeing how there was rampant discussion on this even during the time of Aquinas, I’m beginning to think that it isn’t, and this has been something theologians have been discussing for some time. You look at some of the names both sides have been throwing down, those are heavyweight thinkers. If people were not free to think on either side of this coin, wouldn’t one of the sides have been suppressed at this point?

 

[Sirach2]

In light of the 4,535 views in this thread, signifying that a great number of members and guests are reading this thread, I think it is important to put aside my reluctance to respond. This is a very weighty matter for any who are following along and are exposed to the errors of Trent11 or Trent111.

St. Paul was without doubt the most eminent teacher of all time, and he labored intensely to help us understand what true justification from God consisted of. May we pray for God’s enlightenment, for it is a difficult topic, as St. Paul’s writings demonstrate.

Let’s consider firstly his words in Romans 2:14-15, 29 and follow his development. “When the Gentiles who have no law, do by nature what the law prescribes, these having no law show the work of the law written in their hearts. He is a Jew who is so inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter (actual circumcision).”

Can we agree that the natural law that God infuses in every man’s heart is able to obtain justification for them, per Paul’s epistle? There is no circumcision or baptism, not even a desire for it. The essence is that Gentiles obey their conscience and are therefore pleasing to God. We find this witness in the story of Cornelius who was led to accept baptism AFTER he first received the Holy Spirit, the sign of his justification that made St. Peter understand - finally - that God had opened salvation to the Gentiles, not just the Jews. “God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation, he who fears Him and does what is right (i.e., natural law) is acceptable to Him.” Acts 10:34

Moving on … Rom. 3:29-30, "Is God the God of Jews (Catholics) only, and not of the Gentiles (all others)? Indeed, of the Gentiles also. There is but one God who will justify the circumcised by faith, AND the uncircumcised through the SAME faith.

What is the faith he speaks of? Rom. 4:3. "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as justice. 9. Does this blessedness apply then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? How then was it credited [to Abraham]? When he was in the state of circumcision, or in that of uncircumcision? NOT in circumcision [the rite], but in uncircumcision!

Although God justified him while he was yet “uncircumcisied,” he was later circumcised as the seal of the justice of his faith. Similarly, God may justify those who have not yet been baptized OR circumcised precisely due to their faith being lived out in the natural law within their hearts. Paul tells us that Abraham is the Father of of all, who are yet uncircumcised (unbaptised) yet believed in order that it also may be credited to them as justice. He is the Father of the circumcised AND those who follow in his steps while yet uncircumcised. Vs. 12

Vs. 23, "Now not for Abraham’s sake only was it written that “It was credited to him,” but for the sake of us also to whom it will be credited if we believe in him who raised Jesus from the dead.

How then was God able to justify women who did not receive circumcision? Was it not through** faith,** and living the law in their hearts? Are only Old Testament men in heaven? If Paul was not teaching truth in this important matter, then how do any of us negate scripture in favor of man’s finite logic? Yes, the Church tells us baptism is necessary, just as circumcision was. But we see that what is essential first of all, is faith, whether one is ignorant of God but living the natural law in the heart; or having faith in the Messiah who was to come; or faith in Christ Jesus.

And faith is credited to these as justice by God who is Sovereign and able to justify those whom He will, independent of man’s handcuffing him to their private logic.

I believe this is enough to absorb for the moment. I’ll try to finish later.

 

[thewanderer]

I still want to hear that argument that demonstrates non-contradiction, least you wish to horde such knowledge that would benefit me if you are correct.

There are a few reasons why I am not presenting any such argument here, the main one being that I recognize that currently there is no point in presenting such an argument to you as you are so convinced of your own understanding that you will not give such an argument a fair trial, instead you will dismiss it out of hand because it rests on a different understanding of the passage from trent than you adhere to.

Thank you for laying this all out clearly for me. It is very helpful. Though I do still have a few questions.

1. The context is concerning adult justification.

This I will have to look into more carefully, thanks for bringing it up.

1. We must consider ‘sine’ (without) being used here in the very sentence as a preposition, governing both ‘lavacro’ and ‘voto’ both in the ablative case. It is not stating that justification can happen by this or that, it is stating that it cannot happen without this or that.

I honestly don’t see how this makes any difference, Sine would be used with either interpretation being considered so the fact that it is used is hardly a point of evidene in favor of your interpretation.

1. ‘Aut’ has been used on a consistent basis to mean an inclusive in Church history. So it is not necessary that we interpret it as an exclusive. Romans 1:21 is one example of many.

Again, I have already pointed out why this is not a necessary argument, although you have added a new claim to this, that Aut has been used in an inclusive manner on a consistant basis by the Church. Do you have a good way off backing this up? Just presenting a few passages where aut has been used in such a manner doesn’t quite prove that. Although, even if it were true, this would still just be an argument for the probability, rather than the necessity, of your interpretation.

1. It is at least necessary that we interpret it in an inclusive one way, that if the person being baptized does not desire baptism than the sacramental effect cannot take place even when being baptized, thus an invalid baptism.

That is only if we assume that that is something that this particular statement is concerning itself with.

1. The following was established to read John 3:5, “as it is written” in this Chapter.

No, you are twisting words to fit your inerpretation. You may or may not be right about your interpretation, but these words do not help your case. All that “as it is written” is doing is introducing the text which the Church is using to back up its statement. It is making no claim as to how exactly that quote is to be interpreted. That is not what this phrase means.

1. John 3:5 reads “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” If we read this verse, “as it is written” then we are see that no one can attain justification without being baptized.
2. Thus we can conclude that this Chapter is concerning adults being justified are required to be baptized and desire it and cannot assert that justification can happen prior to water baptism, for all we need to do is read the previous Chapter:

Unfortunately, in your above argument is incomplete as an argument for necessity. You have yet to show either that it is necessary from the grammar of the sentance that it be read as including both baptism and desire or that John 3:5 must necessarily be interpreted the way wich you wish to read it.

Who are justified through Christ.

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins

I don’t understand why you bring this up. Yes, of course one must be born again in Christ to be justified, however, there is more than one way for this to happen.

And three Chapters (VII) ahead:

(Note here that if there was exceptions, such as desire for baptism, this would have been the perfect time to assert it when speaking of Catechumens. We know this Council made exceptions to other things, and asserted them twice concerning the Blessed Virgin and Penance. Not here though…)

That, however, is still not proof of baptism by desire being impossible. There areplenty of places where baptism of desire is spoken of, just because it was not mentioned in this particular passage does not mean that it cannot ever occur.

 

[Sirach2]

Mention was made earlier of St. Dismas, the good thief, who was promised paradise by Jesus because he repented and trusted in Christ’s mercy. There we have it again - no circumcision, no baptism, but only faith which justified him. I fail to see why it matters that his faith was exercised under the old dispensation, because being one of Abraham’s decendants, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, baptised or not, he was justified - unless anyone believes Jesus was mistaken in giving him the promise of paradise? Unless he was a reprobate Jew who had formerly been circumcised but was not living it in the heart, it appears he was a Gentile. So neither the O.T. requirement of circumcision, nor baptism that Jesus taught as necessary for salvation, had taken place. It was baptism by his earnest desire to be one with Christ in His kingdom.

With God, there is no time. It is important to recognize that Jesus’s one sacrifice forever justified those both of the old AND the new covenant, and therefore, Dismas.
It was applied backward in time for those who were just. They did have to await for the redemption in order to enter into God’s presence. Maybe we can wonder why at Jesus’s Transfiguration, which was prior to his passion, that Moses and Elijah were seen speaking with Him. Were they already in heaven? Or rather, had Jesus fast-forwarded in eternal time to show the three disciples that they are with Him? How did they know it was Moses and Elijah? Did they reveal who they were? Lots of unknowns.

I’ll try to address the matter of the Holy Innocents a bit later.

 

[mgsk]

There we have it again - no circumcision, no baptism, but only faith which justified him.

Are you sure you want to argue the Protestant position here?

Baptism as a requirement for salvation had not yet been revealed. Reread the portions after the Resurrection…

 

[Sirach2]

True, but circumcision as a requirement in the Old Covenant was just as much a requirement then, as baptism is now. Jesus Himself was circumcised on the 8th day, as was the requirement of the Law. What you are missing is the fact that, while this is the normative necessity for Catholics, Protestants, Gentiles who believe, et al, there IS another way that God, being Sovereign, can justify those who have faith in the heart, WITHOUT either of them, and without knowing God at all. Do you believe St. Paul’s writing about the “natural law”?

I realize it is a difficult scripture to understand, but read the verses I submitted a few posts ago from St. Paul to the Romans on the possibility of justification outside of either circumcision or baptism. He rebukes those who, having submitted to circumcision, do not have a circumcised heart and fail to live justly. It does not save anyone. Nor does baptism, unless one lives their faith.

This seems to be the bane of the entire thread, that God is not willing to justify anyone unless they are circumcised (O.T.) or baptised with water. Not true, not true. Scripture, especially St. Paul, disproves it entirely, unless one is ready to ignore the Sacred Word.

We know well that St. John the Baptist was not baptized and he died before Jesus. However, the Holy Spirit sanctified him in his mother’s womb before birth, as was also the case with the prophet Jeremiah. It is really wrong to limit God, whose ways are so far above ours.

 

[Eufrosnia]

True, but circumcision as a requirement in the Old Covenant was just as much a requirement then, as baptism is now. Jesus Himself was circumcised on the 8th day, as was the requirement of the Law. What you are missing is the fact that, while this is the normative necessity for Catholics, Protestants, Gentiles who believe, et al, there IS another way that God, being Sovereign, can justify those who have faith in the heart, WITHOUT either of them, and without knowing God at all. Do you believe St. Paul’s writing about the “natural law”?

I realize it is a difficult scripture to understand, but read the verses I submitted a few posts ago from St. Paul to the Romans on the possibility of justification outside of either circumcision or baptism. He rebukes those who, having submitted to circumcision, do not have a circumcised heart and fail to live justly. It does not save anyone. Nor does baptism, unless one lives their faith.

This seems to be the bane of the entire thread, that God is not willing to justify anyone unless they are circumcised (O.T.) or baptised with water. Not true, not true. Scripture, especially St. Paul, disproves it entirely, unless one is ready to ignore the Sacred Word.

We know well that St. John the Baptist was not baptized and he died before Jesus. However, the Holy Spirit sanctified him in his mother’s womb before birth, as was also the case with the prophet Jeremiah. It is really wrong to limit God, whose ways are so far above ours.

I think the above is looking a bit like the Protestant position. Baptism does start the saving process and indeed, if one dies right after baptism, they are technically saved. Baptism gives the indelible mark that one is a child of God.

That being said, it is possible that those outside, have received the baptism of desire. At the same time, it is also logically possible that those outside are indeed not saved. So God in his divine providence would have arranged it such that

1. they are given grace but they reject all of it that will lead to baptism.
2. knowing they will never freely accept the grace, was born in a time and place unable to access such grace

All these positions are logical. Just like the debate where a Protestant argues for Sola Fide and the Catholic argues for Faith and Works. The issue is about picking the right one.

In this sense, the Church, and ONLY THE CHURCH (specifically Magesterium and the Pope) has the authority to do so. They have made it clear that those outside COULD be saved by a baptism of desire.

I think the charge here brought by Trent, that the Church at one point held the doctrine that there was no salvation outside of baptism is questionable. You will run in to issues on how a person in the Old Testament could be saved.

So I think its safe to say that Baptism by desire is possible. But highly unlikely. Why? Because it is very unlikely that a person will give complete assent to a being that they do not know and even if they did, have much hesitation in following his/her moral intuitions.

I think that has been the Catholic position all along i.e. that Baptism and being part of the Church gives you the best chances of salvation. Is it possible to be saved outside the church? Possible but highly improbable.

 

[Sirach2]

They [the Magisterium] have made it clear that those outside COULD be saved by a baptism of desire.

I think that has been the Catholic position all along i.e. that Baptism and being part of the Church gives you the best chances of salvation. Is it possible to be saved outside the church? Possible but highly improbable.

I don’t disagree with you. Church documents in V-II reiterate earlier teachings that it is imperative that we make every effort to evangelize in order to bring people into the Catholic Church, while, of course, respecting their free will to choose. I don’t know how “highly” improbable B.of D. is – we leave that to God, who is Supreme Judge of all His creation. But I’m glad to see you agree that it IS possible to be justified by this means, for that is truth.