It does not seem clear to me that Angels can administer the Sacraments, nor is there anything in history or theology to lend credence to such wild speculation.
Charles Coulombe addresses your position on what Trent actually stated very accurately.
My position? No, the literal words of Trent. Not the heretical speculations of Messer. Coulombe.
"Justification ... since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 4)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. (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on the Sacraments)
The above decree provides the definition of the meaning of St. John 3.5, which excludes what Messer Coulombe makes of it below.
The proof of this is that Trent anathematises anyone who would "make a metaphor" of Our Lord's words, "Unless a man be born again..." That means we must take that phrase----a phrase which does not permit exceptions---literally.
Moreover, such an interpretation of Trent as Messer. Coulombe makes above is itself highly tenditious. The Canon he refers to says:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.(Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on Baptism)
The metaphor is not that the Sacrament of Baptism may be had by desire, which has just been clearly explained twice by the Council, but that water is not necessary for the Sacrament of Baptism, but is merely metaphorical - i.e. the Protestant doctrine of invisible Baptism of the Holy Spirit, water Baptism being merely a symbolic rite and not a substantive Sacrament.
Continuing with Trent, since we've clearly established that Justification is possible apart from actual Baptism by Water by the desired intention to recieve it. No lets adress this comment by Messer. Coulombe by continuing further with Trent:
It declares that the "Votum" (vow, NOT mere desire) to baptised can justify one. But it does not say that one can be saved that way. Justification is the state of being pleasing to God, of having one's sins forgiven---such as you and I are when we step out of the confessional. But that is certainly not the same as being saved.
"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted 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 also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 15)
This section clearly contradicts Messer. Coulombe's heresy. He reemphasizes his heresy in what is below just to make sure everyone understands his position clearly:
An individual who is in the state of justification but has not received these other effects, is like one of the just of the Old Testament. Their sins were forgiven them; but they could not ascend to Heaven precisely because they were sons of Adam. ... For those of us in the New Law, that can only happen through Baptism.
But, Trent is very clear that a man who is justified will be saved if he dies in that state. It says emphatically "we must believe" this and it says nothing further is wanting to him once he is justified but to persevere by grace in that state.
You quite clearly don't believe that, yet an ecumenical council said you must. Ergo, you are spouting heresy.
bingo, brother, Heresies about in trad-dom. It only figures as schism is proximate to heresy
It does not seem clear to me that Angels can administer the Sacraments, nor is there anything in history or theology to lend credence to such wild speculation.
You might want to revise that statement:
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
Whether angels can administer sacraments?
....I answer that, As stated above (3; 62, 5), the whole power of the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him as man. And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men, but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration.
But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [See Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid.
From Fr. Fox's website about Fatima.
http://www.fatimafamily.org/articles/OurLadyHolyEucharist.html
When Our Blessed Mother came to Fatima she came as Our Lady of Peace - all of Light - and she came as Our Lady of the Holy Eucharist. Why do I say this? Well, the day of her first appearance, May 13 was the liturgical feast of Our Lady of the Holy Eucharist. But even before Our Lady came - a year earlier the Angel came with the Holy Eucharist - gave the three little shepherds Holy Communion - the first Holy Communion for Blessed Jacinta and Blessed Francisco. The Angel [left] the Chalice he held with the Host dripping precious blood of Jesus into it - suspended in mid-air while he fell in adoration with his countenance to the ground. The children did the same, saying the words with the Angel:
"O most holy trinity, father, son and holy spirit, I adore you profoundly. I offer you the most precious body, blood, soul and divinity of jesus christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He is offended. Through the infinite merits of the sacred heart of jesus and the immaculate heart of mary, I beg the conversion of poor sinners."
The angel in giving the children Holy Communion taught them to offer their Holy Communion in reparation for those who abuse this Most Blessed Sacrament in various ways:
Rising the Angel took the chalice and the Host. He gave the sacred Host to Lucia. He gave the precious blood of Jesus in the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco, saying; "Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Repair their crimes and console your God."
And finally from Bishop George Hays's lauded
"The Sincere, Devout, and Pious Christian" published 1781-86
Q. 23. But suppose a person in the wilds of Tartary or America, where the name of Christ has never been heard: suppose also, that this person should attend to the dictates of conscience, enlightened by such graces as God is pleased to give him, and constantly comply with them;-----yet, how is it possible that he could be brought to the knowledge and Faith of Jesus Christ?
A. This case is certainly possible; and if it should happen it is not to be doubted but God Almighty would, from the treasures of His infinite wisdom, provide some means to bring such a person to the knowledge of the truth, even though he should send an Angel from Heaven to instruct him. "The hand of the Lord is not shortened, that He cannot save," in whatever difficulties a poor soul may be; He has, in former times, done wonderful things in cases of this kind, and He is no less able to do the same again: and since He has so clearly ordained, that out of the True Church, and without True Faith in Christ, there is no salvation, there can be no doubt but that, in the case proposed, He would take care effectually to bring such a person to that happiness.
Q. 24. Is there any authority from Scripture to prove this?
A. There can be no stronger proof from Scripture than some facts there related. We have in Scripture two beautiful examples of God's acting in this manner in similar cases, which shows that He would do the same again, if any case should require it. The one is that of the eunuch of Candace, Queen of Ethiopia: he, following the lights that God gave him, though living at a great distance from Jerusalem became acquainted with the worship of the true God, and was accustomed to go from time to time to Jerusalem to adore Him. When, however, the gospel began to be published, the Jewish religion could no longer save him; but being well disposed, by fidelity to the graces he had hitherto received, he was not forsaken by Almighty God; for when he was returning to his own country from Jerusalem, the Lord sent a message by an Angel to St. Philip to meet and instruct him in the Faith of Christ, and Baptize him. [Acts 8: 26]
The other example is that of Cornelius, who was an officer of the Roman army of the Italic band, and brought up in idolatry. In the course of events, his regiment coming to Judea, he saw there a religion different from his own,-----the worship of one only God. Grace moving his heart, he believed in this God, and following the further motions of Divine grace, he gave much alms to the poor, and prayed earnestly to this God to direct him what to do. Did God abandon him? By no means; He sent an Angel from Heaven to tell him to whom to apply in order to be fully instructed in the knowledge and Faith of Jesus Christ, and to be received into His Church by Baptism. Now, what God did in these two cases He is no less able to do in all others, and has a thousand ways in His wisdom to conduct souls who are truly in earnest to the knowledge of the truth, and to salvation. And though such a soul were, in the remotest wilds of the world, God could send a Philip, or an Angel from Heaven, to instruct him, or by the superabundance of his internal grace, or by numberless other ways unknown to us, could infuse into his soul the knowledge of the truth. The great affair is, that we carefully do our part in complying with what He gives us; for of this we are certain, that if we be not wanting to him, he will never be wanting to us, but as he begins the good work in us, will also perfect it, if we be careful to correspond and to put not hindrance to His designs.
Not the heretical speculations of Messer. Coulombe.
LOS ANGELES, April 21,[2004] Christian Wire Service/ -- Author, Papal historian, and Church lecturer Charles Coulombe, K.C.S.S. is an expert of things Catholic. By order of Pope John Paul II, he was recently created a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Sylvester for his services rendered to the Holy See. His encyclopedic knowledge, shrewd observations, and witty anecdotes on the Papacy provide singular and engaging commentary....
It's a shame John Paul II didn't have you around to correct him on Messr. Coulombe's heresy: actually believing that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Thanks to our ol' friend Pascendi for passing along that little tidbit to me. :)
My position? No, the literal words of Trent.
Let's look at the literal words of Trent. "Justification ... since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 4)
Okay. Justification is possible through Baptism or the "desire therof". Who's got a problem with that? It doesn't say Salvation. 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. (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canons on the Sacraments)
The above decree provides the definition of the meaning of St. John 3.5, which excludes what Messer Coulombe makes of it below.
No it doesn't It's a two pronged proclamation: reworded in modern English and separated by periods into sentences it reads like this:
If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for SALVATION, but superfluous;let him be anathema.
If anyone says men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of JUSTIFICATION; without the sacraments, or without the desire of the sacraments. Let him be anathema.
That's what that decree actually says. It has nothing to do with "Baptism of Desire"
Continuing with Trent, since we've clearly established that Justification is possible apart from actual Baptism by Water by the desired intention to recieve it. No lets adress this comment by Messer. Coulombe by continuing further with Trent:
It declares that the "Votum" (vow, NOT mere desire) to baptised can justify one. But it does not say that one can be saved that way. Justification is the state of being pleasing to God, of having one's sins forgiven---such as you and I are when we step out of the confessional. But that is certainly not the same as being saved.
"For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted 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 also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Decree on Justification, Chapter 15)
This section clearly contradicts Messer. Coulombe's heresy. He reemphasizes his heresy in what is below just to make sure everyone understands his position clearly:
An individual who is in the state of justification but has not received these other effects, is like one of the just of the Old Testament. Their sins were forgiven them; but they could not ascend to Heaven precisely because they were sons of Adam. ... For those of us in the New Law, that can only happen through Baptism.
But, Trent is very clear that a man who is justified will be saved if he dies in that state. It says emphatically "we must believe" this and it says nothing further is wanting to him once he is justified but to persevere by grace in that state.
You quite clearly don't believe that, yet an ecumenical council said you must. Ergo, you are spouting heresy.
Not quite. You'd better be a little more sparing in your use of "clearly" because it's becoming more and more apparent (pun intended) that you aren't reading clearly.
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/arguingbod.htm
From the above address:
The "apparent contradiction" in the Council of Trent.
Now, for the apparent contradiction… In the matter of just what is necessary for salvation, there are some things in the texts of the Council of Trent which could be taken out of context and made to appear as if Trent teaches baptism of desire in the sense that I defined it at the beginning of this talk. This has been done by many, Father John Hardon, for one, in his much respected The Catholic Catechism. What these adherents of Baptism of Desire claim is this:
The Council maintained the possibility of justification prior to the reception of the sacrament of Baptism — something I will admit is possible;
Then the Council went on to say that "we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified to prevent their being accounted to have… truly merited eternal life… if they depart in grace."
Therefore the one who dies justified but not yet baptized is saved.
Hold that thought for now, because I’m going to introduce another syllogism, which will contradict it. Both the first and second premise of the following syllogism are word-for-word from the Council of Trent. The conclusion is a product of right reason:
"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."
"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, let him be anathema."
Therefore, water Baptism — that is, the sacrament — is necessary for salvation.
If both of these syllogisms are true, then the Council of Trent contradicts itself, and the Catholic Church is a fraud. But of course, we know this isn’t the case.
What then, of the apparent contradiction? It is only apparent. If you read the whole entire decree on justification, you will find that there is never any distinguishing the "baptizatus" from the "jusificatus," the baptized from the justified. In fact, when it speaks of the justified Christian, it is reasonable to assume that, unless it specifies otherwise, it is definitely speaking of a baptized person. The reason I state this so confidently, is because towards the beginning of the decree on justification, when the "causes" of justification are enumerated, the council says, "the instrumental cause is the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified." This is in chapter 7 of the decree on justification. It isn’t until chapter 16 that we read of the certain salvation of him who perseveres in justification. What this shows is that the Fathers of Trent were not, as I said, distinguishing between the baptized justified person and the non-baptized justified person. The assumption has to be that they were speaking of baptized persons. Further proof of this lies in the fact that the Justified are referred to in chapter 7 as members of the Body of Christ — a term all but raving modernists know and believe is synonymous with membership in the Catholic Church. And it is Church dogma, not even remotely disputed by our enemies, that sacramental Baptism is totally necessary for membership in the Church.
My contention is that this apparent contradiction is resolved in this one canon from the Council of Trent:
It’s canon 4 on the Sacraments in General: "If anyone 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 necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."
In this two-part canon, it is made clear that, while justification is possible by the actual administration of or the desire for the sacraments, salvation is only possible by their reception. To the end of the canon is added that not all sacraments are necessary for every individual. Here, then, to paraphrase a psalm, justice and salvation have kissed so that the apparent contradiction in Trent is settled.