FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Baptizing children without without their parent's permission?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(11-17-2011, 03:35 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 03:33 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]Are you serious? You sound like a trad version of FE user aquinasg.

The burden of proof is on you. You need to learn how to tell the difference between fallible and infallible teachings of the Church.

Even if a teaching is fallible, that is, capable of error, it does not mean the logic is invalid, or the conclusions are false.

I'm not saying it is.

He said that a teaching was "definitive" when it's not.

Please read before commenting.
(11-17-2011, 03:33 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 03:31 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 03:29 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]Nowhere does that say "definitive" and even then, what you've quoted above is fallible.

Okay.  Then prove it wrong, if you can.  Bow

Are you serious? You sound like a trad version of FE user aquinasg.

The burden of proof is on you. You need to learn how to tell the difference between fallible and infallible teachings of the Church.

Oh, I know the difference.  But not everything has been infallibly defined, and in that case there is room for discussion.  St. Thomas has his opinion, why not address it, if you think you know better?  Eye-roll
(11-17-2011, 03:37 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 03:35 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 03:33 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]Are you serious? You sound like a trad version of FE user aquinasg.

The burden of proof is on you. You need to learn how to tell the difference between fallible and infallible teachings of the Church.

Even if a teaching is fallible, that is, capable of error, it does not mean the logic is invalid, or the conclusions are false.

I'm not saying it is.

He said that a teaching was "definitive" when it's not.

Please read before commenting.

"Definitive" insofar as St. Thomas philosophical and theological writings have a prominent place in the thought of the Church, even beigng placed on the altar alongside the Scripture at Trent.  In what area do you disagree with what he said?  On what grounds do you disagree with him?
(11-17-2011, 03:37 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying it is.

He said that a teaching was "definitive" when it's not.

Please read before commenting.

I understand, but that is just a deflection from the argument. Aquinas holds a lot of weight, so we really should treat him as definitive and reason from there, unless there is something which is impossible to reconcile.
Obviously, Aquinas can be wrong, as he was about the Immaculate Conception.  But then the question is, how is he wrong?  Justify your position.
(11-17-2011, 03:41 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously, Aquinas can be wrong, as he was about the Immaculate Conception.  But then the question is, how is he wrong?  Justify your position.

You made bold a small part of a large series of objections.

What is your issue?
(11-17-2011, 03:43 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]You made bold a small part of a large series of objections.

Just highlighting some points relevant to the discussion as it had been progressing; and I didn't highlight any Objection, but rather part of the Response.  By all means, address the entire article in context.

Quote:What is your issue?

I'm naturally argumentative, and I like to get to the bottom of things.  So, what is your justification for disagreeing with the Angelic Doctor?
(11-17-2011, 03:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2011, 03:43 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]What is your issue?

I'm naturally argumentative, and I like to get to the bottom of things.  So, what is your justification for disagreeing with the Angelic Doctor?

I don't mean issue in a personal sense. I'm asking where you disagree.
From St. Thomas, we can get the following:

1. It is against the natural law to baptize children not one's own before the age of reason, except in extremis.  With which I think we are in agreement.

2. Baptism of desire suffices for adult Catechumens, so immediate baptism is unnecessary and usually not desirable for several reasons (listed in the last Article posted), nor the standard practice of the Church.  Long periods of preparation are the norm, and the baptism of desire will provide the gap should the Catechumen die before being able to be baptized.  This, you seem to disagree with the standard teaching.  Why?
(11-17-2011, 03:58 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]2. Baptism of desire suffices for adult Catechumens, so immediate baptism is unnecessary and usually not desirable for several reasons (listed in the last Article posted), nor the standard practice of the Church.  Long periods of preparation are the norm, and the baptism of desire will provide the gap should the Catechumen die before being able to be baptized.  This, you seem to disagree with the standard teaching.  Why?

I disagree because there have been multiple ex cathedra pronouncements that state things contrary to BoD.

Now, again, would you like to search the other threads for your answer or do you want to waste both of our time?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14