Con't... Sesson 6, Chapter 4 of The Council of Trent
Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).” Denzinger 796; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 672.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam,
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
I don't disagree with the council; It says NOTHING about baptism of desire. Some have extrapolated BOD out of the council and put it in the catechism. Believe the catechism, deny the council. I choose the council over the catechism. When two opposing teachings come together, the one with authority trumps. The council says water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. If that puts a bee in your bonnet because things aren't as rose-y as you hoped, oh well.
@flatterearth The fact is that it explicitly states "or without the desire thereof" in regards to necessary Sacraments. You disagree with that, therefore you disagree with the council. The council says the same as the catechism. There is no disagreement between the two.
@BeingBob That clause is not it's own dogma. It must be interpreted within the limits of other council statements. I believe the Council when it says water is necessary. Do you? Anathema is at stake. There is no discrepancy (except liberal catechism writers and commentators) with what I've shown you. God is not impotent. He gets His elect BAPTISM. There is no such thing as someone dying on God. For that alone BOD is blasphemous. Jesus also testifies to water and the Holy Spirit.
@flatterearth I believe that statement. Since baptism is necessary, and baptism is a sacrament, and it's the same Session then it necessarily applies to baptism as much as any other necessary sacrament. It applies to all necessary sacraments since no exclusion is given. The other statement does not cancel this prior statement and therefore both must be considered since they both speak of a necessary sacrament.
Exactly! The sacraments ARE necessary. Not superfluous! That statement drop-kicks baptism of desire, which is NOT a sacrament. Canon IV states clearly that without the sacraments, faith alone is NOT ENOUGH! It goes so far as to say that not only is the sacrament of baptism absolutely necessary, but further explains that desire for the sacrament is also necessary. Salvation has always been dependent on willing participation (FAITH) and sacraments (WORKS).
@BeingBob Right. Without them (sacraments) or without the desire for them.... This statement says both sacraments and desire are necessary. Here is another example: Humans cannot live without food or water. Both food and water are necessary. I realize the sedevacanists teach there is no baptism of desire but I am a traditional catholic under Pope Benedict XVI. And you ought not begrudge a protestant when they're actually right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
@flatterearth I put a link to the Latin for Trent in the video notes. This is in agreement with the modern CCC which states on this issue
"1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."
This isn't sola fide. It's someone who is determined to be baptized and who has the full Catholic faith.
@BeingBob Nonsense. Such a person, who has the faith but cannot get baptism is a fallacy. As if God must allow BOD because he must let the person die in an accident. Baloney! God will get baptism for whoever wants it. Period. If they wait...oh well. Ask yourself this: Which is easier for God to get to a dying person, baptism or baptism of desire? Exactly. Either one is as easy for God. He doesn't need BOD. God gets baptism for all the elect. Not baptism of desire. Baptism.
OH! You're saying baptism really is NOT necessary. And people don't really need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to be saved! Hmmm. But that isn't possible. So the Catechism must be wrong. Not Trent, of course. It can't be wrong. But Catechisms are not infallible. And this particular passage is one example since the Council of Trent says in Canon 2 and 5 that water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation and anyone who says otherwise is anathema.
@flatterearth The Catechism of the Council of Trent (CCT) was ordered to be published by Pope Pius V. There is no reason for a Catholic to reject the teaching from the CCT, unless you can show where said teaching was not in the original CCT, or that it was removed from subsequent editions once it was discovered.
@BeingBob BeingBob I reject what the Council rejects and nothing on my own. The catechism is not the Council. It is subject to revision. Baptism of desire or faith alone, a Protestant notion, is the exact thing these canons reject. That's why each statement go so in depth to explain in detail how faith and sacraments work unto salvation. Water is necessary. Faith is necessary. Baptism is necessary. The sacraments as a whole are necessary. Period.
@flatterearth 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Con't... Sesson 6, Chapter 4 of The Council of Trent
Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).” Denzinger 796; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 672.
irmatvep 6 months ago
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam,
irmatvep 6 months ago
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”
irmatvep 6 months ago
I don't disagree with the council; It says NOTHING about baptism of desire. Some have extrapolated BOD out of the council and put it in the catechism. Believe the catechism, deny the council. I choose the council over the catechism. When two opposing teachings come together, the one with authority trumps. The council says water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. If that puts a bee in your bonnet because things aren't as rose-y as you hoped, oh well.
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth The fact is that it explicitly states "or without the desire thereof" in regards to necessary Sacraments. You disagree with that, therefore you disagree with the council. The council says the same as the catechism. There is no disagreement between the two.
-
It's not my bonnet that has bees in it.
BeingBob 1 year ago
@BeingBob That clause is not it's own dogma. It must be interpreted within the limits of other council statements. I believe the Council when it says water is necessary. Do you? Anathema is at stake. There is no discrepancy (except liberal catechism writers and commentators) with what I've shown you. God is not impotent. He gets His elect BAPTISM. There is no such thing as someone dying on God. For that alone BOD is blasphemous. Jesus also testifies to water and the Holy Spirit.
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth I believe that statement. Since baptism is necessary, and baptism is a sacrament, and it's the same Session then it necessarily applies to baptism as much as any other necessary sacrament. It applies to all necessary sacraments since no exclusion is given. The other statement does not cancel this prior statement and therefore both must be considered since they both speak of a necessary sacrament.
BeingBob 1 year ago
Exactly! The sacraments ARE necessary. Not superfluous! That statement drop-kicks baptism of desire, which is NOT a sacrament. Canon IV states clearly that without the sacraments, faith alone is NOT ENOUGH! It goes so far as to say that not only is the sacrament of baptism absolutely necessary, but further explains that desire for the sacrament is also necessary. Salvation has always been dependent on willing participation (FAITH) and sacraments (WORKS).
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth Let's cut out the extraneous material from the quote then.
"and that, without them, or without the desire thereof,"
BeingBob 1 year ago
@BeingBob Right. Without them (sacraments) or without the desire for them.... This statement says both sacraments and desire are necessary. Here is another example: Humans cannot live without food or water. Both food and water are necessary. I realize the sedevacanists teach there is no baptism of desire but I am a traditional catholic under Pope Benedict XVI. And you ought not begrudge a protestant when they're actually right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth It says "or" and specifically it means a future intent to receive the Sacrament.
BeingBob 1 year ago
@flatterearth I put a link to the Latin for Trent in the video notes. This is in agreement with the modern CCC which states on this issue
"1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."
This isn't sola fide. It's someone who is determined to be baptized and who has the full Catholic faith.
BeingBob 1 year ago
@BeingBob Nonsense. Such a person, who has the faith but cannot get baptism is a fallacy. As if God must allow BOD because he must let the person die in an accident. Baloney! God will get baptism for whoever wants it. Period. If they wait...oh well. Ask yourself this: Which is easier for God to get to a dying person, baptism or baptism of desire? Exactly. Either one is as easy for God. He doesn't need BOD. God gets baptism for all the elect. Not baptism of desire. Baptism.
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth If you want to disagree with the council that's your business, and you have just done that. The rest is your pious opinion.
BeingBob 1 year ago
OH! You're saying baptism really is NOT necessary. And people don't really need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to be saved! Hmmm. But that isn't possible. So the Catechism must be wrong. Not Trent, of course. It can't be wrong. But Catechisms are not infallible. And this particular passage is one example since the Council of Trent says in Canon 2 and 5 that water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation and anyone who says otherwise is anathema.
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth The Catechism of the Council of Trent (CCT) was ordered to be published by Pope Pius V. There is no reason for a Catholic to reject the teaching from the CCT, unless you can show where said teaching was not in the original CCT, or that it was removed from subsequent editions once it was discovered.
BeingBob 1 year ago
@BeingBob BeingBob I reject what the Council rejects and nothing on my own. The catechism is not the Council. It is subject to revision. Baptism of desire or faith alone, a Protestant notion, is the exact thing these canons reject. That's why each statement go so in depth to explain in detail how faith and sacraments work unto salvation. Water is necessary. Faith is necessary. Baptism is necessary. The sacraments as a whole are necessary. Period.
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth 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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
BeingBob 1 year ago
Good job my friend. Keep up the good work.
God bless you.
dodge0808 2 years ago
mhfm are Feeneyites (less one or two things ? they said it !
I asked why they did not just admit
they are Feeneyites ?
They are right on almost everything else though . They are indeed a embarrasment on this obvious issue .
This dows not make everything else they say wrong as you cult members go to "mess" with 51%
obama voters ...lol
Pro aborts are members of your cult ....that's why you won't debate
the heresies of V-2 anti popes .
SAYYOURROSARY 2 years ago
Wow. There is no walking away from this. By the way, I like your version of the acronym mhfm.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago