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

[thewanderer]

It does not read it at face value which is why I was using the early Church Fathers, Papal statements and the attitude of the Church towards Catechumens as a premise, a premise you won’t allow for whatever reason.

And all those statements are great for a probable argument but we have not yet moved onto a probable argument, we are still looking for a necessary one.

The onus is on you to prove that it is used as an exclusive regarding desire since I have demonstrated, at least that desire is necessary for a valid baptism, an inclusive. Your mental gymnastics regarding human speech and this subject does not even merit a response since it is entirely based on subjectivity and ignoring the fact that when the Church is teaching regarding a subject, she teaches as any logical teacher does which is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

If this is so can you point me to the part in the Council of Carthage where the Church teaches that desire is necessary for baptism?

Look, whether you like it or not there are times when the Church speaks about only one aspect of a thing and not about all aspects. That does not mean that the Church is wrong to do so, that is just the way humans communicate. It is the way we are designed by God to communicate. If you cannot understand/disagree with that basic point then I really don’t think a continued discussion will be fruitful, it is possible that our understanding of reality is too different to actually get to any mutual conclusion.

I am just reading it as the Church has read it since the patristic period, not using my own interpretation.

And again, that is fine for a probable argument, but we are not yet at the stage of looking for a probable argument.

I have proved that it cannot be necessarily read the way Mr. Akins read it. I’ll have to repeat myself it seems, I am not using this Chapter to prove baptism of desire wrong so stop asking for an argument that this Chapter has to be read the opposite way.

No you have not yet proved that necessarily and we have not moved onto probable arguments yet seeing as you have not told us that it is ok to move onto probable arguments, ie, you have not told us that you do not have any necessary arguments.

If you are not using this chapter to prove baptism of desire is wrong than why in the world didn’t you clarify this point afer my post 132 where I clearly laid out my understanding of the conversation. The reason I am looking for an argument that it must be read as inclusive rather than exclusively is because that is what our discussion was set up to be about back in post 132. Again, if you did not wish to talk about this you should have made that clear way back then. I am simply following the outline for our discussion that I laid out back in that post. We are discussing the interpretation of the passage from Trent. You put forward an interpretation (although admittedly it was an interpretation for the sake of countering Akin’s understanding) and that interpretation is what we are discussing. First any necessary arguments need to be put forward, if none exist we can move onto probable arguments, and, in particular, a discussion of what sort of probable arguments hold the most weight, and then a presentation of various probable arguments and a weighing of their respective values. Its all there, clearly laid out in post 132. I took the time to lay it out explicitlly precisely so that we could all be on the saame page and not have misunderstandings about what our discussion was about and where it was going. If there is a misunderstanding here it is most certainly not my fault.

 

[thewanderer]

And that isn’t an argument by the way, are you going to address the facts that to be born again is to be necessarily understood as baptized in water?

I thought you’d never ask!

The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian:
“That the baptism which heretics and schismatics bestow is not the true one, is everywhere declared in the Holy Scriptures, since their very leading men are false Christs and false prophets, as the Lord says by Solomon: “He who trusteth in that which is false, he feedeth the winds; and the very same, moreover, followeth the flight of birds. For he forsaketh the ways of his own vineyard, he has wandered from the paths of his own little field. But he walketh through pathless places, and dry, and a land destined for thirst; moreover, he gathereth together fruitless things in his hands.” And again: “Abstain from strange water, and from the fountain of another do not drink, that you may live a long time; also that the years of life may be added to thee.” And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit. Certain people therefore interpret for themselves ill, when they say that by imposition of the hand they receive the Holy Ghost, and are thus received, when it is manifest that they ought to be born again in the Catholic Church by both sacraments. Then indeed they will be able to be sons of God, as says the apostle: “Taking care to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, as ye have been called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.” All these things speaks the Catholic Church. And again, in the Gospel the Lord says: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; because God is a Spirit, and he is born of God.” Therefore, whatsoever things all heretics and schismatics do are carnal, as the apostle says: “For the works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornications, uncleannesses, incest, idolatries, witchcrafts, hatreds, contentions, jealousy, anger, divisions, heresies, and the like to these; concerning which have told you before, as I also foretell you now, that whoever do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” And thus the apostle condemns, with all the wicked, those also who cause division, that is, schismatics and heretics. Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.”

Seeing as I trust St. Thomas to be a very intelligent and holy man, one who would never promote a teaching contrary to what the Church holds as dogmatically true, as well as trusting the Church to not promote teachings that are contrary to what the Church teaches I trust that there is a way to understand this without being obviously contradictory to the idea of baptsim by desire. In particular, reading through that council, it is clearly talking about the baptisms that heretics perform and saying that they are not real baptisms, and so because of that if a heretic wishes to join the Church they must be re-baptized as their “baptism” which they performed while in a heretical religion was not a true baptism they must be actually baptized upon entering the Church. In other words, there is no reason to assume that this council was saying anything about the possibility of, say, a catechuman receiving saving graces through a mystical baptism of desire if he dies before he is able to be sacramentally baptized. But, this is all besides the point and is taking us off-topic.

 

[thewanderer]

But that is ignoring the question I asked. Do you accept that if God so wished he would be able to save someone without the waters of baptism?

The reason I am asking this is just to clarify the point that even today God could, if he so wished, save someone without sacramental baptism. That must be held as true. So what is being discussed is not whether God is capable of such a thing, but whether or not God would ever do such a thing. You are of the opinion that God would never ever choose to save someone who has not received sacramental baptism, even if it is not their fault that they were unable to do so. Is this a fair statement of your opinion?

 

[Sirach2]

Hi thewanderer,

It seems the whole argument in this thread rests upon the Trent’s contention and inability to prove that the Council of Trent did not mean OR the desire thereof. The word AUT was said to mean AND. However, if that was true, how easily the writers could have used the common word for “and” which in latin is ET. Here is the latin, which I don’t remember anyone reprinting here, and it is affirmed by Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, that AUT does mean OR.

St. Alphonsus Liguori in Book 6 of his Theologia Moralis, quotes this passage and strongly avers:

“Therefore, it is de fide [dogmatic] that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.”
This dogma was confirmed by the Council of Trent in the following Canon:

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 adispisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria not sint: anathema sit.
[If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that without

them **OR **WITHOUT DESIRE OF THEM men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.]
(Session Septima, Canones de Sacramentis in Genere, N. 4)

Here we find affirmation from a second Doctor of the Church besides St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church has never opposed either of their writings. Wouldn’t you think that their statements would have received public correction by the Holy See if they were in error about such an important teaching?

It is also clear that SINE means “without,” not “except” as Trent also maintained. That being true, Denzinger did not mistranslate, and Jimmy Akin did not misquote.

translate.google.com/?sl=it&tl=en#la/en/sine

translate.google.com/?sl=it&tl=en#la/en/aut

Furthermore, the resulting Catechism of the Council of Trent, states:

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.

If the Council did not truly believe in justification prior to the desire for baptism, this statement would never have been taught formally in the Catechism.

Good job in standing firm against Trent11’s errors!

 

[Sirach2]

For T More who asked us to present any papal teachings that existed prior to Vatican II on the subject of baptism of desire with connection to invincible ignorance.

***- Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 1854 ***

“…It is to be held for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible,** are not bound by any fault in this matter in the eyes of the Lord**. Now truly, who would arrogate so much to himself, as to be able to designate the limits of this kind of ignorance, because of the reason and variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and a great many other things?..”

Venerable Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore

We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion,
if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men,** will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments** (suppliciis).

Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132

A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church

 

[Sirach2]

It would help if we further examined some de fide decrees of the Church on Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus. Catholic apologist whose Internet “handle” is Matt1618 explores three of them here (T More, are you reading this?).

It’s really nice to see a new face in this thread. I’ve read this apologist’s explanation before, and have it saved. He does a great job! Your post was short and sweet, but very potent, so I’m bumping it lest it be buried.

 

[DavidJoseph]

It’s really nice to see a new face in this thread. I’ve read this apologist’s explanation before, and have it saved. He does a great job! Your post was short and sweet, but very potent, so I’m bumping it lest it be buried.

Thanks. Oh, and there’s something I forgot to add earlier – to certain people who have been accusing fellow Catholics of heterodoxy, heresy, etc. (whether explicitly or implicitly) on this thread – not accepting the rigorist version of EENS (which is NOT endorsed by the Church, although tolerated) does NOT mean one doesn’t accept the dogma at all. To claim otherwise is to commit the serious sin of rash judgment.

 

[mangy_dog]

I gave up on trying to understand or decipher Vatican II long time ago.

Instead what I did was to attempt to maintain as much tradition as possible in my life of prayer and of the spirit, nurtured by the Sacraments of Confession and Communion.

I’m glad I held out for so many years because God has graced us with his servants: Pope Paul VI; Pope John Paul I; Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

These holy popes saw and understood Vatican II and brought to light the fact that Vatican II did not abrogate any of the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church. That!! is an important fact that seemed to go unnoticed for many years with catholics…especially in these United States.

 

[DavidJoseph]

I gave up on trying to understand or decipher Vatican II long time ago.

Instead what I did was to attempt to maintain as much tradition as possible in my life of prayer and of the spirit, nurtured by the Sacraments of Confession and Communion.

I’m glad I held out for so many years because God has graced us with his servants: Pope Paul VI; Pope John Paul I; Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

These holy popes saw and understood Vatican II and brought to light the fact that Vatican II did not abrogate any of the Sacred Traditions of the catholic church. That!! is an important fact that seemed to go unnoticed for many years with catholics…especially in these United States.