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

[Melchior_1]

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.”

None of this;

• Covers wanderer’s question about desire. If desire is needed, that contradicts the notion of infant baptism expressed the documents you quoted, because a child cannot desire.
• Trent contradicts the Didache, in which is says that if “living” water is not available then non-living water may suffice.
• None of this excludes that a baptism of desire can happen to those who cannot reach water in time to be baptized. Would you say that someone with mortal sin who is on their way to confession and were to die, they would go to Hell?

So the question at that point becomes; what if someone converts but they do not get the chance to be baptized? Are those in RCIA going to Hell? Are those who are on their deathbeds and die waiting for the priest to show up for Last Rites going to Hell? Are those who, before they die, realize the Truth going to go to Hell?

 

[Melchior_1]

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.

This might help some.

Twenty five theologians, including two Doctors of the Church.

You’d probably like the rest of the site, I imagine.

Oh, and there’s a 26th guy who says;

As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism. Yet catechumens who die without baptism can be saved but only as through fire. That is, they are absolved of eternal punishment, not temporal punishment.”

The 26th fellow says that baptism of desire is fine, but you’re probably going to go to purgatory for a bit.

I mean, unless you want to argue with Aquinas.

 

[thewanderer]

Ok, now to get back to you about the latin.
First, since there are a couple of topics being talked about I just want to clarify the lines of this discussion so that we are all on the same page and can ensure that this discussion remains fruitful.
Ok, no matter how many quotes are thrown around by people from all different sources, the understanding of this whole question comes down to the understanding of that one text from Trent, and, in particular, the meaning of the word “Aut” in that sentence. This is the important question that must be determined and all other posting of quotes is just getting us sidetracked from the question at hand.
Now, it was proposed that in this text Aut is used to show that the sacrament and the desire are two separate things, but not to imply that either can lead to justification, but rather that both are necessary. Trent11, this is your understanding of the matter.
From this there are two different threads of conversation to follow. The first is in determining whether or not it is necessary to understand Aut in this way, the second whether it is permissible for a Catholic to do so.
With respect to the first, the necessity of such an understanding, if it is shown that it is necessary, then the discussion is over. If, however, it is either not shown to be necessary or shown to be not necessary, then the question moves onto how we can best determine which interpretation is most likely.
Ok, having gotten that out of the way, lets look at the necessity of your understanding of “Aut” in this context.

So far, you have given a variety of answers to my request for a demonstration of the necessity of such an interpretation. Of these I find none of the latin language responses sufficient. If you disagree or would like me to explain my reasoning for any of them in particular feel free, but I feel like my post is already getting long enough that I will only respond to them if somebody specifically wants me to.
So far it seems that the only argument you have given so far for its necessity is the following:

trent11:
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…

Again, if you disagree and have other arguments please feel free to bring them up, but please do so at a reasonable rate so that they can all be looked at individually, no swamping posts with tons of quotes, each of which needs its own investigation.

Now, I must admit to not fully understanding your argument here, so I would apreciate it if you would clarify what exactly it is about the context that leads you to the conclusion that your interpretation of the word “Aut” must necessarily be true? (note necessarily, not just probably, that discussion comes later on, only if you cannot show absolute necessity)

 

[mgsk]

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"

That’s not the whole story. “I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein”.

 

[mgsk]

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

Really?

Remind me to use Matthew 7:6 when things start to heat up too much.

 

[Eufrosnia]

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

Hi, I replied to one of your posts here

Did you miss it?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Agreed, and the authority has spoken clearly and and unambiguously that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation without exception. If you need the interpretations of Trent read in this light, I can quote you the Catechism of the Council of Trent if you’d like? It is more emphatic over this. But remember, Catechisms, theologians, even the Ordinary Magisterium, when it is speaking as the Authentic Magisterium, can error when it is not speaking in line with dogma and tradition.

But aren’t you essentially pitting one council against another? Or in a way, one set of Apostolic Successors at one time period against another?

 

[mgsk]

Hi, I replied to one of your posts here

Did you miss it?

No, but that priest wasn’t arguing against baptism of desire, so I didn’t really understand what I was supposed to take from your post

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, but that priest wasn’t arguing against baptism of desire, so I didn’t really understand what I was supposed to take from your post

Oh ok. Well what I meant to say was that with any position regarding any issue, there would be logically consistent positions that do contradict each other.

In such an event, should it not the Church that decides which is right?

 

[Usagi]

That’s not the whole story. “I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein”.

And the current Pope insists that VII may not be read as violating that precept, whether the one doing the reading regards the later council as a wonderful replacement or a terrible ruin of what came before.

“Other Christian communities retain elements of truth and sanctification that they got from us” is not to be read as “And therefore other Christians are A-OK where they are,” but as “And that’s a better starting point for revealing to them the rest of the truth than calling them hellbound heretics.” We must observe that this works. The Catholic Church recently achieved intercommunion with the Assyrian Church of the East, which had been separated from us since Chalcedon (IIRC), by sitting down like adults and talking out our differences, whereupon it turned out that both churches had been trying to defend the same truth but insisting on different words for somewhere around 1500 years.

“Even non-Christian religions have an orientation toward truth-seeking and may have arrived at some elements of the truth” is not to be understood as “all religions are equally true, and salvific to boot,” but again as “we can start from where they are instead of denouncing everything they presently hold dear as an artifice of Satan.” Missionaries back to St. Paul have used the tack of “Sounds as though your stories contain some knowledge of the real God, let me tell you more,” so it’s hardly an idea born of modernism.

“God may have mysterious means of providing the grace of baptism to those who were unable to receive the sacrament itself in this life” doesn’t mean “So don’t bother evangelizing anybody” or even “God will totally save all those people,” and certainly not “Those people will be saved BY their ignorance, whereas they’ve have had a harder time of it had they become Catholic.” It’s merely a reminder to trust in God’s mercy and not lose hope for the people we couldn’t get to in time, whether because they lived on a continent unknown to Christendom until after their lifetimes or because they died so early in life that baptism was impossible. Yes, many of the Fathers stressed the absolute necessity of baptism, and for good reason. But the Lord and the Apostles from which they received that teaching also taught of God’s perfect justice and mercy and His universal salvific will. I don’t believe there’s anything in the modern documents that forbids believing that God miraculously sent an angel or missionary to instruct and baptize those He foreknew would respond to His grace, and that everyone else was justly condemned. Maybe that’s what we’ll find out at the Judgment. On the other hand, we may learn that God supplied the grace of baptism to some people without the water, as the Church seems largely to accept that He will for formal catechumens who die either of persecution or by ordinary causes before their fully-intended baptism.

Usagi

 

[T_More]

None of this;

• Covers wanderer’s question about desire. If desire is needed, that contradicts the notion of infant baptism expressed the documents you quoted, because a child cannot desire.

So why do DO we baptize infants? And why do we have the sacrament of confirmation?

• Trent contradicts the Didache, in which is says that if “living” water is not available then non-living water may suffice.

**Is the Didache infallible? We know that Trent is because it is ex cathedra. So you tell me? Can we hang on our hope on document like the Didache, a document that, while helpful with historical context, we do not know for certain who or where it came from?

Can we define what it means by living and non living water? It does not say that lack of water is still sufficient. In addition, “may suffice” is not the same as “will suffice”.

**

• None of this excludes that a baptism of desire

And it doesn’t include it. It would seem that the Council of Trent would’ve had the perfect chance to do so, considering the revolt going on at that time.

can happen to those who cannot reach water in time to be baptized. Would you say that someone with mortal sin who is on their way to confession and were to die, they would go to Hell?

**I offer this:

** “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****.” St. Thomas Aquinas

“Now, even the Catechumen believes in the Cross of the Lord Jesus, but unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.” St. Ambrose

“Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism.” Council of Braga

“No one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” Council of Florence

So the question at that point becomes; what if someone converts but they do not get the chance to be baptized? Are those in RCIA going to Hell? Are those who are on their deathbeds and die waiting for the priest to show up for Last Rites going to Hell? Are those who, before they die, realize the Truth going to go to Hell?

See the quotes above.

 

[thewanderer]

Posted by T_Moore

Originally Posted by Melchior_

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*None of this;

• Covers wanderer’s question about desire. If desire is needed, that contradicts the notion of infant baptism expressed the documents you quoted, because a child cannot desire.

So why do DO we baptize infants? And why do we have the sacrament of confirmation?*

**

So I take it that you are accepting the opinion which contradicts this statement 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

---

In other words, you are accepting a position which the Church has declared anathema?

 

[Melchior_1]

You ignored my own Aquinas quote. Assuming that those two cancel each other out, you ignored my entire post where I mentioned twenty five theologians supporting (including two Doctors) my view. The link I provided came from a traditionalist site, no less.

 

[Melchior_1]

That’s not the whole story. “I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein”.

The quote I gave was in the appendix. Every Pope can, and should, exercise the power granted to him through having the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Benedict has done this.

Why are some traditionalists struggling so much with the concept of holy obedience and assent to the Pope? I certain expect this from “liberals”, however holy obedience and assent to the Pontiff is a very traditional (and Traditional) matter.

The quote you gave is from Paul VI saying that he would not change Tradition, and he did not.

 

[T_More]

thewanderer:
So I take it that you are accepting the opinion which contradicts this statement from Trent?
**
In other words, you are accepting a position which the Church has declared anathema?

I absolutely accept all infallibly defined dogma. The question(s) were rhetorical. If actual water is essential to the infant’s salvation (which is why it has been a practice since the beginning in the Eastern and Western churches), then why is not for adults?

 

[Melchior_1]

I absolutely accept all infallibly defined dogma. The question(s) were rhetorical. If actual water is essential to the infant’s salvation (which is why it has been a practice since the beginning in the Eastern and Western churches), then why is not for adults?

Hold up. Does that mean that miscarried or aborted children don’t go into Heaven? Children born after delivery, before their baptism go to Hell?

 

[thewanderer]

I absolutely accept all infallibly defined dogma. The question(s) were rhetorical. If actual water is essential to the infant’s salvation (which is why it has been a practice since the beginning in the Eastern and Western churches), then why is not for adults?

All right, if you accept that it is not necessary for both to take place how in the world do you understand this quote from Trent

indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it

I know of no way to understand this without contradicting the other dogmatic proclamation without understanding it to say that either one or the other is necessary. Can you please explain how the latin word “Aut” is being used here that neither contradicts this other statement nor amounts to saying either/or?

 

[mgsk]

Hold up. Does that mean that miscarried or aborted children don’t go into Heaven? Children born after delivery, before their baptism go to Hell?

We can’t be certain, but none of us deserves Heaven in our natural state, so it certainly isn’t a given. All the current Catechism says is that we have to entrust their souls to God’s Mercy. That doesn’t change the fact that they still have Original Sin. And that’s part of what makes abortion such a terrible crime - Pope Sixtus V defended the death penalty for those who committed abortions in the Papal States by saying:

“Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.”

They are obviously not guilty of personal sin, but Original Sin is still incompatible with the life of grace in the soul. That’s why so many people suggested Limbo as a possibility for so long - a state of purely natural happiness, but not the Beatific Vision.

 

[trent11]

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 was excepting an argument against my statement that implicit desire is an oxymoron rather than you arguing that St. Aquinas believed in oxymorons or not.

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.

It has been demonstrated already because the words after “cannot happen without the the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,” “as it is written” is used to describe John 3:5. If desire was sufficient, then we cannot read that verse “as it is written” and would render “as it is written” meaningless. Why else would the Council quote that verse “as it is written” when that very verse requires a person to be reborn both of Spirit and Water? Seeing it otherwise causes vast contradictions.

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?

Catechism of Trent

It may not be doubted that in Baptism infants receive the mysterious gifts of faith. Not that they believe with the assent of the mind, but they are established in the faith of their parents, if the parents profess the true faith; if not–to use the words of St. Augustine–then in that of the universal society of the saints; for they are rightly said to be presented for Baptism by all those to whom their initiation in that sacred rite is a source of joy, and by whose charity they are united to the communion of the Holy Ghost.

You can see how the desire for baptism is supplied and satisfied for the infant by either the parents (or guardians) or the society of the saints since his or her faculty of the intellect and will are not yet fully developed. Interestingly enough, the Church has always taught that baptism is the only source of salvation for the infant, yet you will have me believe that when the child passes the age of reason that said necessity is lifted and replaced with necessity of desire. No, passing the age of reason doesn’t replace anything but adds another requirement of the individual on top of baptism, desire for it. Hence the proper interpretation of that text in question.

It should note as well that baptisms, for adults, are invalidated if desire is lacking such as being forced, sleep, done out of some joke, etc… something for you to contemplate on.

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

Summa Theologica of St. Aqauinas contained twenty four formal errors and bears the Nihil Obstant and Imprimatur. The Catechism of Trent bears the Nihil Obstant and Imprimatur but it has a heterodoxical passage. The NAB bears the Nihil Obstant and Imprimatur but contains some of the worst translation errors in Church history. The list can go on, the point is made. Nihil Obstant and Imprimatur equaling ‘free of error’ has always been demonstrably false.

Trent contradicts the Didache, in which is says that if “living” water is not available then non-living water may suffice.

Didache: Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

It’s actually saying the opposite of what you’re implying and reinforcing Trent. The Didache is constantly pushing the necessity of water here and never compromising. I think “living water” here is referring to holy water or water mixed with chrism to celebrate this sacrament in a solemn form. We can see this spoken in Catechism of Trent,

But it should be noted that while in case of necessity simple water unmixed with any other ingredient is sufficient for the matter of this Sacrament, yet when Baptism is administered in public with solemn ceremonies the Catholic Church, guided by Apostolic tradition, has uniformly observed the practice of adding holy chrism which, as is clear, more fully signifies the effect of Baptism.

Hold up. Does that mean that miscarried or aborted children don’t go into Heaven? -]Children born after delivery, before their baptism go to Hell?/-]

St. Aquinas quoting St. Augustine (Ep. ad Dardan.): “No one can be born a second time unless he be born first.”

 

[trent11]

Hold up. Does that mean that miscarried or aborted children don’t go into Heaven? Children born after delivery, before their baptism go to Hell?

Session 6—6 July 1439 [Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence]: Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

Council of Lyons II, Denzinger #464: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with original sin only [e.g. infants], however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”