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

[Melchior_1]

Sirach2, you have no right to excommunicate fellow Catholics (not even the newer documents give you that authority). Shame on you.

If Sirach was doing this, it’s the same principle that is being applied by others in this thread. There are people in this thread denying salvation to those who may have obtained it, trying to say whole swathes of people are denied Heaven.

Too often I see people take hardline stances such as “you must be a baptized Catholic when you die in order to get into Heaven”, ignoring the very real concept of baptism of desire, ignoring that to be a heretic you need to be a dissenting Catholic (and several protestants were never Catholic in their lives).

Yet as soon as they themselves are placed under similar strict guidelines or have the book thrown at them, they chafe.

 

[Sirach2]

If Sirach was doing this, it’s the same principle that is being applied by others in this thread. There are people in this thread denying salvation to those who may have obtained it, trying to say whole swathes of people are denied Heaven.

Too often I see people take hardline stances such as “you must be a baptized Catholic when you die in order to get into Heaven”, ignoring the very real concept of baptism of desire, ignoring that to be a heretic you need to be a dissenting Catholic (and several protestants were never Catholic in their lives).

Yet as soon as they themselves are placed under similar strict guidelines or have the book thrown at them, they chafe.

Thank you, Melchior, well said.

After reading your beautiful testimony this morning, it is clear that converts are NOT won by a sophist’s arsenal of self-interpreted document proofs to sway innocent minds from the truth. Your way follows God’s way.

May God deliver these innocents from the harm of reading those kinds of posts. Nothing less than spiritual STD’s (steal, trample, destroy).

 

[mgsk]

There’s a stark difference between restating what countless popes and saints have said and proclaiming excommunication on someone for believing what they said.

And for the record, I certainly acknowledge baptism of desire, especially in the way it has always been taught - as relating to unbaptised catechumens.

 

[Melchior_1]

There’s a stark difference between restating what countless popes and saints have said and proclaiming excommunication on someone for believing what they said.

And for the record, I certainly acknowledge baptism of desire, especially in the way it has always been taught - as relating to unbaptised catechumens.

No one has “proclaimed” excommunication. What has been pointed out is that there are some beliefs in this thread that are not inline with the Church. Those beliefs are held by those who think that people who are not inline, are out of line, and are on the outside. People are being judged by the same standards they judge others, what more can you ask for?

This whole thread can easily be distilled to a simple concept; in a matter of faith and morals, our current Pope has said “this is how this works”. In an ecumenical council, it was said in a matter of faith and morals “this is how this works”.

As I said in another thread, Vatican II was either;

A) A pastoral council that clarified existing dogma. Same message, same belief, just presented differently. “Here’s H2O, but instead of presenting it as a solid ice cube, here it is the same amount of H2O, but in liquid format”. Because it was a group of bishops publicly teaching doctrine of the Faith, it was an exercise in infallibility.

B) Any new dogma declared with the bishops and Pope using a council is an exercise in infallibility.

C) Both of the above.

Either way; the council was infallible. The Pontiff has spoken. Assent is required. Which is roughly what Pope Benedict XVI and the CDF is saying.

 

[Sirach2]

Either way; the council was infallible. The Pontiff has spoken. Assent is required. Which is roughly what Pope Benedict XVI and the CDF is saying.

Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est

 

[thewanderer]

Can you demonstrate otherwise through any syllogistic argument?

1. Only someone who is not intelligent will believe something which is obviously self-contradictory to be true
2. (assumed) The principle of implicit baptism by desire is obviously self-contradictory
3. St. Thomas believed that not just baptism by desire, but implicit baptiism by desire is true
4. Therefore St. Thomas is not an intelligent person.
   
   Seems a pretty clear reduxio to me.

I stated in my first post that to confirm this, contact a Latin scholar as they tell you that though it is uncommon, aut can be used as ‘and’ with a contextual observation. But as well, did you read the lexicon I quoted? It demonstrates that desire and baptism are mutually exclusive, the contextual observation makes them both collectively necessary. As well, you did not deal with the other instances when aut was used as ‘and’ else where in the Council.

Yes, I understand that you have shown that it can be used this way, that is not my question, my question is for proof that it can’t have been used any other way in this text, because that is absolutely crucial to your argument and it has not yet been demonstrated.

 

[thewanderer]

So I went back to try and find this lexicon you refered to… are you talking about this post?

I’m not sure if you’re understanding the Latin then. The only reason to use aut is to distinguish opposites (eg, A or B). You seem to be thinking that it is saying the effects of baptism applies to the one receiving baptism or the one desiring it. Aut here is only used to demonstrate that A, the one baptized, and B, the one desiring it, are two mutually exclusive referents. And it is not using “or” to state the effects of baptism applies to both referents if they were exclusive unto themselves, it is to collectively exhaust the genus of baptism of what is necessary to bring about the effect of baptism (since a baptism can be invalid to whom that does not desire it, as Pope Innocent III decreed that intent is necessary for a valid baptism). This is why I said vel would better your interpretation, if the effect is actualized in both referents but then again they would not be truly mutually exclusive but carry a nominal distinction. Let’s use an example to help:

“The light in my lamp will go out if I do not have electric power or light-bulbs.” Both are necessary to carry out the desired effect, both are mutually exclusive as referents and the genus to generate artificial light is collectively exhaustive since we have a light-bulb, a lamp and electricity. To the reason why ‘or’ was used interchangeably ‘and’ is of no consequence to the intelligence of the writer or to the effect of the decree since it has been done, uncommonly, else where and the proper interpretation can be drawn from the text when contexts is observed. Such as observing the Canons on Baptism & “as it it written” in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 or once again the infallible quote of Pope Leo the Great.

Yes, I read this post, but first of all, I don’t see how this is a lexicon, second of all I don’t see it proving that it cannot be otherwise. To me this is a post where you again state your opinion that it cannot be otherwise, but without backing it up with actual proof. And just so you know, I do intend to check with some latin scholars I know when I get the chance, but I do not know when that will be, I will post their response up here if I ever get around to it.

 

[trent11]

Trent 11

Sorry…

When I saw the length of your posts, I knew better NOT read your rebuttal.

Perhaps this sort of thing is above you and should defer it then to more learned to discuss since you now won’t read, let alone can’t rebut.

Mosts assuredly it will be another spin on why the Church is wrong in her present teaching and that the only valid belief for a Catholic is to cling to older papal documents.

Present teaching? Older documents? Truth never changes & and what has been spoken infallibly, concerning dogma, in any time is eternally binding.

That puts you outside of communion with the Church, and outside obedience to her Divine Authority to bind and loose.

That is false my friend and you will do well to study a bit of canon law to understand why. Since my stance does not consist of refusing to believe in an article of faith but a novelty, law therefore makes it clear that if my position is in error requires investigation to determine if my will is malicious and hold pernicious beliefs to the faith since it is not manifest that I am speaking formal heresy but simply holding to the theology of certain patristic Fathers. In this case, you would need to await if my position merits the concerns of the authorities, an investigation, a hearing, a sentence and whether or not this is to be public information before daring to proclaim me “outside of communion with the Church.”

And scripture tells me what to do in this case.

I thought you were stating that dogmatic teachings and scripture is not for the laity to interpret, now when the occasion suits you, in an uncharitable manner, you have misused it to pass judgment on a fellow Catholic because the discussion has fled your grasp… How disheartening.

 

[trent11]

No one has “proclaimed” excommunication. What has been pointed out is that there are some beliefs in this thread that are not inline with the Church. Those beliefs are held by those who think that people who are not inline, are out of line, and are on the outside. People are being judged by the same standards they judge others, what more can you ask for?

This whole thread can easily be distilled to a simple concept; in a matter of faith and morals, our current Pope has said “this is how this works”. In an ecumenical council, it was said in a matter of faith and morals “this is how this works”.

As I said in another thread, Vatican II was either;

A) A pastoral council that clarified existing dogma. Same message, same belief, just presented differently. “Here’s H2O, but instead of presenting it as a solid ice cube, here it is the same amount of H2O, but in liquid format”. Because it was a group of bishops publicly teaching doctrine of the Faith, it was an exercise in infallibility.

B) Any new dogma declared with the bishops and Pope using a council is an exercise in infallibility.

C) Both of the above.

Either way; the council was infallible. The Pontiff has spoken. Assent is required. Which is roughly what Pope Benedict XVI and the CDF is saying.

Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium rebukes this conclusion. Study it.

 

[trent11]

So I went back to try and find this lexicon you refered to… are you talking about this post?

Yes, I read this post, but first of all, I don’t see how this is a lexicon, second of all I don’t see it proving that it cannot be otherwise. To me this is a post where you again state your opinion that it cannot be otherwise, but without backing it up with actual proof. And just so you know, I do intend to check with some latin scholars I know when I get the chance, but I do not know when that will be, I will post their response up here if I ever get around to it.

I will post it again, though you can find it on post #94.

A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon dixit:
OR, aut; vel; ve (enclitic): sive (or seu; rare in Cicero; common in poets and later prose writers). NB Aut stands in disjunctive sentences when one clause is entirely apposed to the other; vel when the opposition is only partial; ve is usually connected with single words, not with clauses, denoting reciprocal exclusion; sive, seu, or si, with vel, implies a difference merely in name or in the form of expression; e.g., audendum est aliquid universsi, aut omnia singulia patienda; de nostris rebus satis, vel etiam nimium multa; non sentiunt viri fortes in acie vulnera; vel, si sentiunt, se mori malunt; esse dico ea quae cerni tangive possunt; Minerva sive Tritonia. We may say that aut distinguishes, vel co-ordinates, sive denotes synonyms, ve is a milder vel. Aut distinguishes things and expressions which are diametrically opposed to each other, or, at least, are considered as widely different; vel implied that it is indifferent which of several things takes place, or which of several propositions is affirmed; it matters not whether they be different or alike; vel, for the most part, distinguishes only single words, more rarely whole clauses; and when it does so, it implied only a slight or nominal distinction: sive is used, (1) when, with reference to one and the same subject, a choice is given between several names and predicates; or, (2) when a speaker or writer, himself in doubt or suspense, leaves the choise with the hearer or reader …… Either - or, aut - aut; vel - vel; sive - sive; or seu - seu NB sive - sive usually with the indicative unless the sense requires a subjunctive.

And the reason why it cannot mean an either/or in the normative sense is that context would render such a interpretation inconsistent given the very following words it used for John 3:5 “as it is written”, the Caons on The Sacraments in General, Canons on Baptism, infallible statements of the past and the Church’s position on the matter since the patristic period, such as refusing to bury catechumens and distinguishing catechumens from the faithful by splitting the Mass in two (Mass of the Catechumens & Mass of the Faithful), etc…

 

[Melchior_1]

Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium rebukes this conclusion. Study it.

Our current Pope, who has the keys, agrees with me. Especially when you consider "As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands"

 

[T_More]

Don’t fret implications of some on this thread, trent11. if your invincibly ignorant, you’re fine.

 

[thewanderer]

I will post it again, though you can find it on post #94.

A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon dixit:
OR, aut; vel; ve (enclitic): sive (or seu; rare in Cicero; common in poets and later prose writers). NB Aut stands in disjunctive sentences when one clause is entirely apposed to the other; vel when the opposition is only partial; ve is usually connected with single words, not with clauses, denoting reciprocal exclusion; sive, seu, or si, with vel, implies a difference merely in name or in the form of expression; e.g., audendum est aliquid universsi, aut omnia singulia patienda; de nostris rebus satis, vel etiam nimium multa; non sentiunt viri fortes in acie vulnera; vel, si sentiunt, se mori malunt; esse dico ea quae cerni tangive possunt; Minerva sive Tritonia. We may say that aut distinguishes, vel co-ordinates, sive denotes synonyms, ve is a milder vel. Aut distinguishes things and expressions which are diametrically opposed to each other, or, at least, are considered as widely different; vel implied that it is indifferent which of several things takes place, or which of several propositions is affirmed; it matters not whether they be different or alike; vel, for the most part, distinguishes only single words, more rarely whole clauses; and when it does so, it implied only a slight or nominal distinction: sive is used, (1) when, with reference to one and the same subject, a choice is given between several names and predicates; or, (2) when a speaker or writer, himself in doubt or suspense, leaves the choise with the hearer or reader …… Either - or, aut - aut; vel - vel; sive - sive; or seu - seu NB sive - sive usually with the indicative unless the sense requires a subjunctive.

And the reason why it cannot mean an either/or in the normative sense is that context would render such a interpretation inconsistent given the very following words it used for John 3:5 “as it is written”, the Caons on The Sacraments in General, Canons on Baptism, infallible statements of the past and the Church’s position on the matter since the patristic period, such as refusing to bury catechumens and distinguishing catechumens from the faithful by splitting the Mass in two (Mass of the Catechumens & Mass of the Faithful), etc…

Thanks, I’m not sure how I missed it, I will have to wait to read it properly though.

 

[thewanderer]

Trent11, I know I still need to read through your post more thoroughly, and I will address it later, I still have a question from you that needs to be answered. Since your interpretation of the meaning of Aut in this instance necessitates that both sacramental form and actual desire be present on the part of an individual do you agree that there is no point to infant baptism as infant baptism cannot save an infant since the infant has no desire for baptism?

 

[Sirach2]

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim.%202:23&version=NIV

Trent11, Ever since you joined CAF, you have persisted in tearing down the faith we believe as Catholics, as was taught in the Baltimore CC, the CC of St. Pius X, and the present CCC, all of which have imprimaturs, all of which teach baptism of desire.

Though I am perfectly capable of continuing debate, scripture warns me about the foolishness of doing so.

NONE of this applies a whit to Catholics here, for we are all baptized.

NONE of it applies to non-C’s, for they too, are baptized and have the Holy Spirit.

NONE of this debate pertains to others who are not christian, for they will not even see your arguments, nor will they desire to embrace the faith due to your contentiousness.

So yes, I do what scripture tells me and avoid you. Consider the dust shaken.

 

[thewanderer]

Trent11, I know I still need to read through your post more thoroughly, and I will address it later, I still have a question from you that needs to be answered. Since your interpretation of the meaning of Aut in this instance necessitates that both sacramental form and actual desire be present on the part of an individual do you agree that there is no point to infant baptism as infant baptism cannot save an infant since the infant has no desire for baptism?

The reason this question is so important is because of this text from Trent

or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema

This seems to imply that however Aut is to be interpreted in the other text it cannot be understood as meaning that both the sacrament and the desire are necessary. However, this is implied by your understanding of the meaning of Aut in this context. Since we know that the Aut cannot be refering to both elements being necessary I cannot see how to understand it other than saying that it means that either one or the other is necessary. This is a very important consideration for you as it currently seems as though your understanding of this passage contradicts Catholic dogma.

ETA: Sorry, I didn’t give a reference for the text from Trent.
Here is a link: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html
Its the 3rd decree in the 5th session

 

[T_More]

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim.%202:23&version=NIV

Trent11, Ever since you joined CAF, you have persisted in tearing down the faith we believe as Catholics, as was taught in the Baltimore CC, the CC of St. Pius X, and the present CCC, all of which have imprimaturs, all of which teach baptism of desire.

And the Coucil of Trent? BTW, catehcisms are not protected by the charism of infallibilty.

 

[Sirach2]

I’m outa here T More. The dust is shaken. You guys duke it out. Have fun.

 

[Melchior_1]

And the Coucil of Trent? BTW, catehcisms are not protected by the charism of infallibilty.

The catehcisms in question have imprimaturs and nihil obstats, don’t they? That means the content within is free from doctrinal error.

I’m interesting in hearing responses to wanderer’s latest post, regarding infants being ineligible for baptism since they lack the desire to get baptized.

 

[T_More]

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, “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.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “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.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin, death… so that in them there may be washed away by
regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage XVI, on Original Sin and Grace: “For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ. For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be
brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it **advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred **for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

I cannot find or reference to baptism of desire or baptism of blood in any pre VII council documents. If anyone can show this being taught in any pre VII infallible documents, I would appreciate it.