THe difference between being disposed towards justification, and ACTUALLY made just

[Gregory_I]

What is the difference between being DISPOSED toward Justice, and actually justified?

Are those who are well disposed ACTUALLY justified? If so, why? Does the Church teach disposition toward justice is the same thing as being made just? Looking forward to it:

Have fun.

 

[Carlan]

What is the difference between being DISPOSED toward Justice, and actually justified?

Are those who are well disposed ACTUALLY justified? If so, why? Does the Church teach disposition toward justice is the same thing as being made just? Looking forward to it:
Have fun.

No Gregory, being prepared for justification is not the same thing as being justified.
You are not justified by Christ’s death on the cross for the world’s sin unless you as an ***individual ***accept that redemption.Peace, Carlan

 

[Gregory_I]

SO if desiring baptism is a disposition, and not a formal act of justification (baptism alone is the sole instrumental cause of our justification according to trent, session 6), then why would anyone say that a person who died desiring baptism was justified, when in truth, they were merely well-disposed toward the justice of God, but did not in fact effect their justification?

 

[Carlan]

SO if desiring baptism is a disposition, and not a formal act of justification (baptism alone is the sole instrumental cause of our justification according to trent, session 6), then why would anyone say that a person who died desiring baptism was justified, when in truth, they were merely well-disposed toward the justice of God, but did not in fact effect their justification?

A good example of someone being well disposed and not Baptised would be the good thief on the cross. Yes? For any soul well disposed at death desiring salvation would not be denied God’s mercy.Peace, Carlan

 

[Will_S]

SO if desiring baptism is a disposition, and not a formal act of justification (baptism alone is the sole instrumental cause of our justification according to trent, session 6), then why would anyone say that a person who died desiring baptism was justified, when in truth, they were merely well-disposed toward the justice of God, but did not in fact effect their justification?

Council of Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

But what is meant by “the desire thereof”? It is a nebulous, undirected desire to possibly receive the sacraments at some time?

Not at all. Think about the catechumen who is desirous of baptism as the earliest time possible; immediately, in fact, were it permitted him. He want to be baptized now, in order to save his soul, but the Church does not permit it. First he must undergo instruction. What happens if he dies suddenly and is unable to be baptized before his death?

That is the case which is being referred to by Trent.

 

[Iotaunum]

A good example of someone being well disposed and not Baptised would be the good thief on the cross. Yes? For any soul well disposed at death desiring salvation would not be denied God’s mercy.Peace, Carlan

I see what you are saying. The good thief was certainly of good disposition when he asked Christ to remember Him. Also, we can be sure that he was indeed saved, as Christ promised him. However, this particular example cannot be used as an example of someone who was saved independently of the sacrament of Baptism, since Baptism became necessary only after the resurrection.

 

[Gregory_I]

THe good thief doesn[t count becauwe Christ had not made baptism obligatory, and the church was not yet established because pentecost had not come.

Actually, if you read the Roman Catechism, which interprets the council of Trent, the council, when it said, “or the desire for them” wasn’t saying you can be justified either by baptism or the desire for baptism. It said no one can be justified without baptism or its desire. Meaning all who are to be saved are to be baptized. But all who are to be baptized must desire baptism. Watch, this is pretty cool:

"Dispositions for Baptism

Intention

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."

So what Trent means is that all have to be baptized to be saved. And in order to be baptized, all have to desire baptism. It must be a free act of the will, otherwise, if a person receive it only for fire insurance, it is a sacrilege, and it will condemn the person to hell, should they die on the spot. It’s interesting how the dsaving waters of baptism become waters of condemnation for those who are not properly disposed. THerefore, we must be disposed.

BUT is this disposition sufficient BY ITSELF and incomplete for salvation?

"Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ’s Resurrection

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, **the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

“If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

[Gregory_I]

Does that make sense? Has anyone here ever heard of 19th century lay theologian Orestes Brownson, or Abp. George Hay or Fr. Michael Meuller? If so, what are your opinions?

Oh, I found a really cool section in the ordinary teaching magisterium of the church, in the papal encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, by Pope Pius XII:

“22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

What does this mean for those who are said to have an “implicit desire for baptism”?

Doesn’t everybody have that, in the sense that no one WANTS to be tormented in hell?

How can an implicit desire for something be efficacious, when, in such circumstances, the individuals have no IDEA what to desire in the first place? God doesn’t force his grace, so how can anyone DESIRE it when they have no means of knowing about it? What about faith? What about the teaching of the Catechism that all those who are saved are obliged to be baptized?

Clearing up this discrepancy would be nice. Thanks.

 

[Carlan]

Does that make sense? Has anyone here ever heard of 19th century lay theologian Orestes Brownson, or Abp. George Hay or Fr. Michael Meuller? If so, what are your opinions?

Oh, I found a really cool section in the ordinary teaching magisterium of the church, in the papal encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, by Pope Pius XII:

“22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

What does this mean for those who are said to have an “implicit desire for baptism”?

Doesn’t everybody have that, in the sense that no one WANTS to be tormented in hell?

How can an implicit desire for something be efficacious, when, in such circumstances, the individuals have no IDEA what to desire in the first place? God doesn’t force his grace, so how can anyone DESIRE it when they have no means of knowing about it? What about faith? What about the teaching of the Catechism that all those who are saved are obliged to be baptized?

Clearing up this discrepancy would be nice. Thanks.

No, but God is always there with actual grace prompting, convicting sinners of the sin they are in.If the sinner is in the state of conviction of his sin and reaches out ,in Faith ,to God for help. God will give him the grace to seek what is needed to change.
Does that make sense Gregory? Peace, Carlan

 

[Gregory_I]

It makes sense if you think God is limited byo ur circumstances, i.e. if you believe that God would not overcome the physical limitations of where he happen to be to bring the true faith and baptism. But in that case, you are speculating that God would make an exception to the universal obligation to baptism.

But where does the church teach in the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM that such a thing is ever done? What does God do in the scripture?
THose who love God are always called by God into the TRUTH. THose who are left in their ignorance should be considered reprobate, since The apostle Paul teaches that the gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.

In other words, instead of saying: “God will make an exception to his requirements for salvation because of the persons circumstances,” why not say: “God is not limited to our circumstances, and can furnish a minister for those who truly desire him. In fact, we should consider that those who never hear the gospel would never accept it if they DID hear it.”

None are lost without God knowing about it. And those who do not hear, are not meant to hear: because of their sinfulness, they are condemned. Is that a plausible alternative?

 

[Leo_The_Great]

I see what you mean: God can furnish baptism for those who truly desire it. Those who do not receive it, never truly desired it.

I think it is faithless to think that God would permit those that loved him to perish without the truth. That is the Dark Side of “Implicit” BOD: God doesn’t love you enough to give you the whole truth, he’d rather see souls who truly love him fight for it themselves? please.

Those who do not know, would never have changed had they known anyway. You say I am limiting God, since the sacraments do not bind him? I say you are limiting GOd by not trusting that he will fulfill his word. PLus baptism is obligatory upon ALL would be saved, Catechism of the Council of Trent as Promulgated by the ordinary magisterium teaches that.