FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
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 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Yes, he does a fair Job. In fact, as I showed on the other thread, He maintained that the Necessity of WATER BAPTISM was absolute for every person who was to be saved.

But of course, you deny that...Heaven knows why. :eyeroll:
(01-29-2012, 01:45 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, he does a fair Job. In fact, as I showed on the other thread, He maintained that the Necessity of WATER BAPTISM was absolute for every person who was to be saved.

But of course, you deny that...Heaven knows why. :eyeroll:

Are you willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong about this?
I am completely Docile to all Solemn Pronouncements of the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Teaching of the Ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium, and the UNIVERSAL consensus of theologians on matters that are considered to be divinely revealed.

If you can REALLY SHOW ME. Then yeah. I suppose. I don't hold this view to be Stubborn, but because I believe it to be true.
(01-29-2012, 01:45 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, he does a fair Job. In fact, as I showed on the other thread, He maintained that the Necessity of WATER BAPTISM was absolute for every person who was to be saved.

But of course, you deny that...Heaven knows why. :eyeroll:

That you think what you just said contradicts Baptism of Desire demonstrates that you haven't understood the issue adequately.  There is no contradiction, and insisting there is one does not prove it, particularly as it flies in the face of the clear historical teaching of the Church.
(01-29-2012, 02:12 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]If you can REALLY SHOW ME.

Tell me, what would it take?
Either a solemn pronouncement (I already know there are none), or the UNANIMOUS and UNIVERSAL teaching of theologians from the time of the apostles to the present day demonstrating the fact (It must be a moral unanimity, not 3 or 4) Teaching it as a TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD. Or the UNIVERSAL and ORDINARY magisterial teaching of the Church, which MUST include the unanimous consent of the Fathers and CANNOT deviate from it in any way, as Per Vatican I.

Is this not what you yourself would ask someone to demonstrate to you?

Actually, if I demonstrate this to YOU ought you not to change your opinion? If I can show that a teaching is so from one of these three categories? Solemn Magisterium, Ordinary Magisterium, Unanimous and Universal teaching of theologians of a truth as revealed by God?
(01-29-2012, 03:10 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-29-2012, 01:45 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, he does a fair Job. In fact, as I showed on the other thread, He maintained that the Necessity of WATER BAPTISM was absolute for every person who was to be saved.

But of course, you deny that...Heaven knows why. :eyeroll:

That you think what you just said contradicts Baptism of Desire demonstrates that you haven't understood the issue adequately.  There is no contradiction, and insisting there is one does not prove it, particularly as it flies in the face of the clear historical teaching of the Church.

Historical my foot! From the 12th century onward in spurts to the 16th century where it took off in Force due to Jesuit Casuistry HARDLY constitutes the Historical teaching of the church. And by the way, you keep treating saints as though they speak on behalf of the Church. They don't. Only a Pope does. So please stop calling it a Church teaching when the Church has never taught it. You cannot point to any point of time in history and say "Here is where the Roman Catholic Church officially taught the truth that Baptism of Desire is a truth revealed by God and must be believed by all the faithful."

It doesn't exist. If it did, I would know it, and i would believe it.
(01-29-2012, 03:47 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Either a solemn pronouncement (I already know there are none), or the UNANIMOUS and UNIVERSAL teaching of theologians from the time of the apostles to the present day demonstrating the fact (It must be a moral unanimity, not 3 or 4) Teaching it as a TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD. Or the UNIVERSAL and ORDINARY magisterial teaching of the Church, which MUST include the unanimous consent of the Fathers and CANNOT deviate from it in any way, as Per Vatican I.

Is this not what you yourself would ask someone to demonstrate to you?

Actually, if I demonstrate this to YOU ought you not to change your opinion? If I can show that a teaching is so from one of these three categories? Solemn Magisterium, Ordinary Magisterium, Unanimous and Universal teaching of theologians of a truth as revealed by God?

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium...I do not think you understand how this works...  :LOL:

"C. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium (or simply, the Universal Magisterium)

"The body of Bishops led by the Pope can teach infallibly when gathered together in an Ecumenical Council. But they can also teach infallibly while dispersed in time and place. The ordinary and universal Magisterium, despite the name, is an exercise of the infallible Sacred Magisterium, not the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. The name uses the word 'ordinary' because such infallible teachings begin to be taught, at first, under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. But when the Pope and the Bishops throughout the world have taught the same doctrine of faith and morals, definitively to be held by the faithful, over the course of some length of time. It is then, when that ordinary teaching has been taught universally by the Pope and the Bishops, that it no longer falls under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, but now falls under the infallible Sacred Magisterium. At that point, it is called a teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium.

"Ordinary teachings are non-infallible. Ordinary teachings that have been taught universally are infallible. The Ordinary Magisterium is non-infallible; the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible.

"The Pope can teach infallibly under the Sacred Magisterium or non-infallibly under the Ordinary Magisterium. An Ecumenical Council can teach infallibly under the Sacred Magisterium or non-infallibly under the Ordinary Magisterium. But teachings under the ordinary universal Magisterium begin under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium and reach their fulfillment, perhaps after some refinement of doctrine, by being taught under the infallible ordinary universal Magisterium. The ordinary universal Magisterium is the most common way that the Magisterium teaches infallibly."

from this explanation of the Magisterium, though I can't necessarily speak for the site as a whole:  http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordina...terium.htm

It is not that everybody, ever, has absolutely to agree.  But at a certain point, common agreement becomes the weight of the Magisterium.  When you start speaking against the Doctors of the Church and the teachings of saints and popes...shaky ground.
(01-29-2012, 03:53 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-29-2012, 03:10 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-29-2012, 01:45 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, he does a fair Job. In fact, as I showed on the other thread, He maintained that the Necessity of WATER BAPTISM was absolute for every person who was to be saved.

But of course, you deny that...Heaven knows why. :eyeroll:

That you think what you just said contradicts Baptism of Desire demonstrates that you haven't understood the issue adequately.  There is no contradiction, and insisting there is one does not prove it, particularly as it flies in the face of the clear historical teaching of the Church.

Historical my foot! From the 12th century onward in spurts to the 16th century where it took off in Force due to Jesuit Casuistry HARDLY constitutes the Historical teaching of the church. And by the way, you keep treating saints as though they speak on behalf of the Church. They don't. Only a Pope does. So please stop calling it a Church teaching when the Church has never taught it. You cannot point to any point of time in history and say "Here is where the Roman Catholic Church officially taught the truth that Baptism of Desire is a truth revealed by God and must be believed by all the faithful."

It doesn't exist. If it did, I would know it, and i would believe it.

Oh really?  What about St. Pius V or St. Pius X?  Do those Popes count?  How about Ven. Pius XII, who excommunicated Fr. Feeney, even if not officially for his novel teachings?

Your view of Church history is skewed, if you think Scholastics and 16th century Jesuits are bad guys.  That's the Lutheran line, doncha know? :LOL:
NO, my view of the Church is not skewed. Scholastics and Jesuits are not the church.

I understand how the universal and ordinary magisterium works. But universality applies to TIME and NOT just a geographic era. Vatican II is proof of this. I reject it whole-heartedly, yet it was the "universal" teaching of bishops.

SO, universality is more than the common consent of those bishops who are alive.

Like Vatican I says:

Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same church I most firmly accept and embrace.
Likewise I accept sacred scripture
according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures;
nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.
-The Papal Profession of Faith.

Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
in matters of faith and morals,
belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine,
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.
-Vatican I on Revelation.

That is what I stand on. Since the Ordinary and universal magisterium is teaching on scripture, ultimately, it CANNOT contradict the unanimous consent of the fathers. The unanimous consent of the Fathers is: "Water baptism alone suffices for justification."

This is antithetical to the notion of BOD.

Therefore I currently reject it.

Tell me, if someone is saved by BOD, then in that particular case, what do ur Lord's words mean for that person? Referring to John 3:5 of course. Is Jesus speaking metaphorically or literally?

Let's look at what you posted:


"The body of Bishops led by the Pope can teach infallibly when gathered together in an Ecumenical Council. But they can also teach infallibly while dispersed in time and place. The ordinary and universal Magisterium, despite the name, is an exercise of the infallible Sacred Magisterium, not the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. The name uses the word 'ordinary' because such infallible teachings begin to be taught, at first, under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium.

But when the Pope and the Bishops throughout the world have taught the same doctrine of faith and morals,[/b] definitively to be held by the faithful,[b] over the course of some length of time. It is then, when that ordinary teaching has been taught universally by the Pope and the Bishops, that it no longer falls under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, but now falls under the infallible Sacred Magisterium. At that point, it is called a teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium."

Where was BOD ever taught to be definitively held by the faithful? That is the part that always gets left out! It must be TAUGHT TO BE REVEALED BY GOD.

BOD IS NEVER TAUGHT THIS WAY. EVER.

He also says over the course of some time. I contest that. How long is long enough? I say that it must be shown to have unanimous consent within the fathers. THat is safest.

BUT BOD HAS NO UNANIMOUS CONSENT IN THE FATHERS. Only 1 Father taught it for Sure, St. Augustine. He later RETRACTED his position. St. Ambrose is THOUGHT to have taught it because of his eulogy on the emperor Valentinian, but again, that is taken out of context. He tells the people that Valentinian did not receive the sacramentS of baptism (yes, plural). Obviously back then they did the big three, Baptism Confirmation and Eucharist all at once. He then goes on to tell them not to worry that the sacraments were not solemnly celebrated. It sounds like he could be saying that Valentinian was BAPTIZED...but that is all. He was probably telling the people not to worry that he did not receive confirmation and the Eucharist. Because the SAME AMBROSE taught that a person is not excused from the Obligation to Receive water baptism, even if he is physically impeded. He taught the OPPOSITE of the Catechism of Trent on this issue.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23