Another EENS, please be patient...

[SouthpawLink]

Not to re-enter the debate, but where has the Magisterium explicitly taught the distinction between justification and salvation?  It appears that she has in fact equated them:

"We must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace" (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16).

Would your counter-argument be that catechumens haven't fully satisfied the divine law (i.e. no baptism)?  But then neither can they be considered justified.

Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16 is speaking about those already Sacramentally baptized.

Can catechumens be justified?  Or are there two types of justification, one for the baptized and one for catechumens (the first saves, the second doesn't)?

[Stubborn]

Not to re-enter the debate, but where has the Magisterium explicitly taught the distinction between justification and salvation?  It appears that she has in fact equated them:

"We must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace" (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16).

Would your counter-argument be that catechumens haven't fully satisfied the divine law (i.e. no baptism)?  But then neither can they be considered justified.

Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16 is speaking about those already Sacramentally baptized.

Can catechumens be justified?  Or are there two types of justification, one for the baptized and one for catechumens (the first saves, the second doesn't)?

IMO - therein lies the crux of the issue.

IMO - and ONLY IMO - it ultimately boils down to relying on the explicit words of Our Lord commanding the necessity of being Sacramentally baptized.

IOW - and IMO -  regardless of whether or not one is justified - if they have not been baptized, they will not be rewarded with salvation.............*that* is what Our Lord said.

[SouthpawLink]

Well, okay.  Tradition, however, is another source of revelation, and IMO, it (pre- and post-Trent) supports the thesis of baptism of desire (at least explicit desire).

God bless! 

[Stubborn]

Well, okay.  Tradition, however, is another source of revelation, and IMO, it (pre- and post-Trent) supports the thesis of baptism of desire (at least explicit desire).

God bless! 

I disagree.

Please post whatever the Church pre and post Trent taught that supports any thesis of BOD that does not contradict the explicit command of Our Lord.

If it is out there, I've not found it - yet.

[SouthpawLink]

Well, okay.  Tradition, however, is another source of revelation, and IMO, it (pre- and post-Trent) supports the thesis of baptism of desire (at least explicit desire).

God bless! 

I disagree.

Please post whatever the Church pre and post Trent taught that supports any thesis of BOD that does not contradict the explicit command of Our Lord.

If it is out there, I've not found it - yet.

We've been over this ground several times before... even disregarding St. Augustine, there are still 12 Doctors who've supported baptism of desire, ten before Trent and two afterwards (not to mention several Pontiffs, both before and after Trent).  Then there're the Roman Catechism, the Roman Martyrology and the 1917 Code, not to mention the common and constant consent of theologians; aside from Michael Baius, whose opinions were condemned by Pope St. Pius V, no one of significance is mentioned by traditional theologians as an opponent of baptism of desire.

[Stubborn]

Well, okay.  Tradition, however, is another source of revelation, and IMO, it (pre- and post-Trent) supports the thesis of baptism of desire (at least explicit desire).

God bless! 

I disagree.

Please post whatever the Church pre and post Trent taught that supports any thesis of BOD that does not contradict the explicit command of Our Lord.

If it is out there, I've not found it - yet.

We've been over this ground several times before... even disregarding St. Augustine, there are still 12 Doctors who've supported baptism of desire, ten before Trent and two afterwards (not to mention several Pontiffs, both before and after Trent).  Then there're the Roman Catechism, the Roman Martyrology and the 1917 Code, not to mention the common and constant consent of theologians; aside from Michael Baius, whose opinions were condemned by Pope St. Pius V, no one of significance is mentioned by traditional theologians as an opponent of baptism of desire.

I see.

IMO, all these together do not over ride the explicit command to be Sacramentally baptized in order to attain salvation as was dictated by Our Lord and echoed numerous times via infallible declarations.





 

[UnamSanctam]

Theres a lot of IMO's being tossed around here. 

[Gregory I]

Hey southpawlink!

Good to see you!

Actually, Trent and many other places distinguish between justification and salvation in this way:

Justification is being placed in a right relationship with God and is a reward for faithful obedience.

Glorification is actually being taken up into heaven.

Not all who are justified will be glorified.

Only those who will be glorified are properly "saved."

THerefore, there are some who are justified, yet who will not be saved. In fact, none of us who are justified while on earth are "saved" unless you believe in eternal security. TO be SAVED, means to be rescued and kept safe. This is clearly the case in the glorified, but not necessarily in the justified; unless you insist that the just will infallibly persevere; but I know you are no Calvinist.

Therefore, there are some who are just who will not be glorified. This is because they will not persevere.

Fr. Feeney simply said that that of those just who are glorified, only those who have the sacramental seal of baptism will have the capacity to persevere. Those who die without Baptism, who is to say that they will persevere unto the end without the sacraments?

Even more thought provoking;

Who is to say that the death of a catechumen before baptism is not the particular judgement of God for some sin? Ananias and Saphira were killed by God Himself for their offenses to the Holy Spirit, and God CAUSED them to die in mortal sin.

Who is to say that those who die WITHOUT Baptism, yet desiring it, are not undergoing the same type of punishment?

In which case, who is to say that the theory is even worth postulating at all?

[SouthpawLink]

Good to see you again as well, Gregory!

I think it's worth postulating because that's what the Church does (she loves coming up with theological conclusions).

I find it interesting that, besides St. Augustine in his Retractions and Fr. Feeney, no other notable author has come out in favor of the view of strict (absolute) necessity of baptism for adults, as against the more common view (99.9%) of the relative (or extrinsic) necessity of baptism, the grace of which can be supplied by desire (charity or martyrdom).

P.S. - The passage I quoted from Trent mentioned the necessity to persevere in grace for eternal life.

Like I said, I really don't wish to get into this debate again, because I think that all that can be said was done so in the first 10-15 pages of this thread.  The way I see it, a number of magisterial acts and/or documents (CCT, EOA, RM, 1917 Code, two pre-Tridentine pontiffs, at least two post-) and a host of theologians, including 12 Doctors among them, support my position.  If I can't appeal to authority, then what?  Your interpretation against mine?  If that's how it works, then what's the point of having all those catechisms and theology manuals?  How is it that they're all wrong and Rome has allowed this misinterpretation of Trent to go on uninterrupted for the last 450 years?  I know I've already asked that, but I still think it's a good question (assuming you're right and I'm wrong).

[Gregory I]

Well, the first think is, it's not unheard of. Look at Pope Liberius; he opted for a non-solution to the Arian issue.

Look at the doctrine of subordinationism; it was not heterodox, properly understood, but it was the ground from which Arianism sprung for a couple hundred years. In fact, until the First  Council of Nicea, the subordinationist view was the predominant view of church theologians wrestling with the relation between father and son.

Look at the issues surrounding the veneration of the Archangel Uriel, whose cult was only suppressed in the 7th century.

Lots of things go unchecked for long periods of time. The Church is not WRONG, the church has never issued any ACTUAL magisterial documents on BOD. I wonder if it's meaningful that it has not so far...