When Speculative Theology Goes Wrong

[catholicguy]

Did my previous posts not explain this? Read Canons 2 and 5 of the Canons on Baptism from the Council of Trent (from your source):

"Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."

My commentary: if true and natural water is [b]necessary[/b], then nothing else suffices. The word necessary means "Absolutely essential; indispensible". If this is true, then Baptism by water is the only thing that qualifies as Baptism, and anything else qualifies as a metaphor and twists the words of Our Lord (such person is anathema). The only response to this argument is "This Canon refers to only sacramental Baptism, not "baptism" of desire and blood." A few Canons down, we find the answer to this objection.

"Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

My commentary: If Canon 2 speaks of sacramental Baptism only (not including "baptism" of desire and blood), then so does Canon 5. Since this is obviously true, Canon 5 provides the answer that sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation. The only way around this is to contradict these explicit teachings by Trent and to create two other Baptisms, but this would then contradict the previous Canon (Canon 2). As I stated before, these Canons from Trent state, by syllogism, that there is only one Baptism. The other sources for this Truth were posted earlier:

[quote]As Saint Paul says "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism", so also the Council of Vienne proclaimed: "All the faithful must confess only one Baptism, which regenerates in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God and on faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown people alike for the perfect remedy of salvation."[/quote]

Here we see that the Church teaches only one Baptism (not three). Likewise, if you assert that these other things (that are not actually Baptism)--"baptism" of blood and desire--are sufficient for salvation, without sacramental Baptism, you contradict Canon 5 from the Council of Trent. Do you see this contradiction in modern theology? It is something that very few are aware of and fewer still understand.

Edit: I was quoting someone else when I said that; also, this would mean that Baptism is not really [i]necessary[/i] (see above for reasoning); also, Saint Thomas Aquinas takes a completely different view point, as I described earlier:

[quote]"Because of God's omniscience, He knows that a person who has not been given a chance to hear the Gospel would reject anyway if he had heard it because of His great mercy he has placed this soul in an environment such that he would not have the opportunity to reject the Truth, and thus, his punishments in Hell would be reduced." (That is Saint Thomas Aquinas's argument inserted into your form of writing that sentence). [/quote] I have no problem finding the source if you wish (it is a question in the Summa, I just do not know which off the top of my head).

Edited July 14, 2004 by catholicguy

[Guest JeffCR07]

I believe he will probably reference Canon 2, arguing that it supports the Sacrament of Baptism (by water and the spirit) that it is the only way to achieve heaven.

This argument, ultimately, fails on multiple different angles. First is the issue that baptism "of desire" ([i]baptismus flaminis[/i]) is irrevocably established in this same Council of Trent. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, when speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire." Thus the traditionalist argument cannot stand, for if one proclomation of Trent is true, so too are the others.

How then, are these two ideas reconciled?

The answer is, ultimately, one that I thought we had brought up before. Just because there can exist an "exception" to a rule does not, in any way shape or form, mean that the rule is invalid or no longer exists.

In the same way, when Christ, the Universal Rulemaker, does not make worthless his statement (as quoted in Trent's Canon 2) if He, in His magesty, provides for certain cases of exception. All that must be done is for one to humbly accept that Christ's mandate is aimed at those who have the possibility of being baptised, but do not do it.

[cmotherofpirl]

CG:do you see you are missing our point?

Edited July 14, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[catholicguy]

I am not missing your point. Your point is a contradiction between the word "necessary" and its definition. Further, Trent never said that the desire itself can save, it simply states that without the desire (if you have not been baptized), you are automatically damned. Just because you are damned without desire does not mean that the desire, by necessity, has saving power (because this contradicts other statements from the Council). It says "cannot be saved without Baptism, or the desire thereof". This does not mean then that the desire itself can save (this is a negative statement, not an affirmative one). The Canons on Baptism make the affirmative statements. By making a negative statement and including desire, one does not by necessity claim that the desire is affirmatively capable of acheiveing salvation, and since this was condemned later in the Council (Canons 2 and 5), we see that this inference is erroneous.

[Guest JeffCR07]

please read my above post, CG, if you are sticking with Trent as acknowledging exclusively the Sacrament of Baptism (by water and the Holy Spirit) then it is a self-contradictory council as by quote shows, also, I have addressed your issue with Christ's statement.

[catholicguy]

I assume that you did not read my previous post before writing since the times were so close; please read those (and the one I just entered).

[catholicguy]

That ^ above was pretty funny (that we both realized what happened with the timing). Jeff, I read this (concerning desire), but the fact that desire is included in the negative statement and not included in the affirmative statement says volumes. The Council did not include desire in the affirmative statements, the Canons on Baptism, because the Council did not claim that desire can attain the same efficacy of the Sacraments. Trent did not teach that desire for Baptism can save. Just because it is included in the negative does not mean that it is true in the affirmative.

N.B., the reason, most likely, that "desire thereof" was included was that the Summa Theologica was the only book, other than the Bible, which was publicly presented and used at Trent. In the Summa, Saint Thomas Aquinas argues that if a man explicitly wishes to be baptized by water into the Catholic Church but is unable to be baptized by someone, God could (not that He necessarily will) extend His grace to this man. This is still speculative theology. The Church does not teach this speculation. Saint Thomas Aquinas said that it might be possible; that doesn't mean that it is. In addition, this is not talking about Indians, pagans, Jews, etc, etc, etc, but only those who have a desire to be baptized with water (like a catechumen if he were in some kind of accident, before dying, could have this desire), but that does not mean that it is taught by the Church, and it does not mean that the desire saves (in other words, Saint Thomas does not say that it will necessarily save him and Saint Thomas was not infallible anyway).

Edited July 14, 2004 by catholicguy

[Guest JeffCR07]

I will address your most recent post

[quote]Further, Trent never said that the desire itself can save, it simply states that without the desire (if you have not been baptized), you are automatically damned. Just because you are damned without desire does not mean that the desire, by necessity, has saving power (because this contradicts other statements from the Council).[/quote]

Here is where you are wrong, actually analyse the wording:

[quote]It says "cannot be saved without Baptism, or the desire thereof". This does not mean then that the desire itself can save (this is a negative statement, not an affirmative one). The Canons on Baptism make the affirmative statements. By making a negative statement and including desire, one does not by necessity claim that the desire is affirmatively capable of acheiveing salvation, and since this was condemned later in the Council (Canons 2 and 5), we see that this inference is erroneous.[/quote]

Such an interpretation cannot stand up to logical scrutiny. "Cannot...without" is, in grammatical terms, a double negative which perfectly equates to a positive statement (if I say I won't not go to the store, that has one meaning: that I will go to the store). Moreover, if your interpretation was correct, then the term "or" perticularly in conjunction with the comma, would not have been used, and it would have read "cannot be saved without Baptism and the desire thereof"

The only logical way that one can conceive of your interpretation is if the interpreter has a preconceived notion of how he wants Trent to read, and that he knows what Canons 2 and 5 say.


As I have illustrated, the correct interpretation, as supported by the Magisterium and the Holy Father, as well as many saints and Church Fathers, reconciles the 2 canons with chapter 4, session 6, as well as with the catechism.

The only thing this interpretation does not reconcile with is the "traditionalist" view

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

lol, we're still posting simultaneously

[Guest JeffCR07]

I am aware of the situation with Aquinas, but I do not think you are giving the Fathers of Trent enough credit. As I described above, it is really a very far stretch to interpret the ch4s6 clause in a way that does not support baptism of desire. On a purely personal standpoint, I just can't believe that the Fathers of Trent, who were perfectly aware of the debate and the issue, would (if the traditionalist argument is to be believed) make such a grevious error.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[catholicguy]

The reason it has to read the way it does (if one is to include desire in the question at all) is that if it read "and" that would imply that a desire for Baptism is necessary for salvation (but it is not). A baptized infant needs no desire in order for the Sacrament to be efficacious. Further, it is not as if it requires that a person already have knowledge of Canons 2 and 5. The Church does not teach through secondary clauses. The Church does not take the ending of a sentence to be an affirmative decree or proclamations. The quotations used for desire are commentaries and not actual decrees or statements made by the Church which make affirmations and anathemas. The Canons on Baptism, Canons on Confirmation, Canons on Justification, etc, all have a list of decrees which the Church holds to be true (or, in this case, holds to be false since they are anathemas). The fact of that matter is that the quote which makes a reference to desire is not stated in any Canon, only in the commentary. If this really were Church teaching, why didn't the Church teach it through a Canon and anathema? Limbo has a more substantiated claim (and this is not defined by the Church). The only thing we know is that those who die with Original Sin only go to Hell (to be punished with different punishments); we do not know that the souls who die with only Original Sin do not suffer any pains at all (this is speculative); we do know they go to Hell (this is Church doctrine). Further, if desire saves, then Trent contradicts itself. The Canons on Baptism have yet to be reconciled to this expect through speculative theology.

[catholicguy]

WOW, we did it a few more times...

As far as the Fathers of Trent are concerned, there was actually no debate. Saint Thomas Aquinas had proposed this as a possible concept that God could do, not that God [i]would [/i]do by necessity. In any event, I believe my family (who is visiting from Connecticut) should be home by now, so I should go get dressed for lunch (and bowling!). I will be sure to keep in touch (except, my PMs have been cut and so have my emails because I received a warning: my warn level is 10%; does everyone with 10% and over lose PMs or something? I tried to contact dust but I cant since these things are cut). Bye for now.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Whenever you get back, post and if I'm around we (and thedude) can resume the debate. I agree with you on the limbo issue, but I have 2 points of contention. The first (probably not significant to the debate at hand) is that there WAS debate over Aquinas' proposition. Some (such as myself) believed in a baptism of desire, others believed, like Aquinas, that it is impossible to tell, still more believed that Aquinas was dead wrong.

The second, and more important issue is that of the interpretation of Chapter 4, Session 6 (hereafter "the desire clause" lol). Your explanation of how it is to be interpreted seems excessively roundabout, especially as it regards the phrasing and word choice. Moreover, the assertion that "The Church does not teach through secondary clauses" just doesn't fly with me.

The Church teaches in everything that it does, and many personal letters, dispatches, etc can, in some cases, teach with as authority as a decree or canon.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

PS, have fun eating and bowling (I'm at work, and very, very jealous)

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

catholicguy,
Do you agree that God himself isn't bound by His own sacraments?

[catholicguy]

Sadly, we did not go out to lunch, but my aunt made us something. We are going to dinner then bowling in a little bit, but my only response for now is that it is questionable also (if there was a debate) that the Council Fathers should leave the question unanswered in the other Canons of the Council (the actual decrees) rather than commentary (this is equally as questionable as the fact that "the desire clause" was inserted in the first place, nice title by the way ). As for thedude, I suppose that God is not bound by the Sacraments although I am unaware of the Church saying this. Well, I should say that God is bound by His word, not His Sacraments. Baptism is not necessary because of the fact that it makes one a member of the Church as much as the fact that God Himself said it was necessary. I liken it to a sinner. As it is writte, the Lord will strike down the wicked and punish him, so also the Church proclaims "One who dies in mortal sin (or Original Sin only) descends immediately into Hell." Likewise, it is written "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost", so also the Church proclaims "If any one saith that baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation; let him be anathema." This seems to be quite logical. I believe that God is bound (by His own will) to follow His word that He has spoken to us. We know that a sinner who dies in this state will perish, as He says; we also know that a person who is born without Baptism will perish, as He says.

My question to you guys is: Do you not agree, at least, with Hananiah that it is acceptable and a permissible option for Catholics to hold that Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is necessary for salvation (often termed "Feeneyism") provided that these people acknowledge that the Church is infallible, etc, and do not pretend that the Church has somehow erred with the CCC, etc (like me)?

Edited July 14, 2004 by catholicguy