FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada (/showthread.php?tid=51891)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Stubborn - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:10 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Jenn,
Why would Trent ever use the phrase "desire for them" in reference to the sacraments if it wasn't interested in introducing any mitigation into their doctrine, and one that previously existed to boot. The other canon clarifies that this is a teaching against the Protestants who defended a "faith alone" method, which negated the necessity of some or all the sacraments in ANY form, including perfect contrition.

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.

Again, this canon does not reward salvation, BOD does.
This canon plainly states the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. BOD is not a Sacrament.

Read what is written.




Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Scriptorium - 12-29-2011

Context:

Quote:In Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism, Zwingli outlined his disagreements with both the Catholic and the Anabaptist positions. He accused the Anabaptists of adding to the word of God and noted that there is no law forbidding infant baptism. He challenged Catholics by denying that the water of baptism can have the power to wash away sin. Zwingli understood baptism to be a pledge or a promise, but he disputed the Anabaptist position that it is a pledge to live without sin, noting that such a pledge brings back the hypocrisy of legalism.



Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Stubborn - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:49 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, and it has also made it clear that desire for the Sacraments, explicit and implicit, have potentially salvific value.  That Modernists use this as a wedge for indifferentism does not change that this is the case.

The Church cannot make clear that the "desire" for the sacraments suffices without contradicting her own infallible statements to the contrary.

Even though Trent did define just such, as Scriptorum just pointed out?  :eyeroll:

Trent defined what with that canon? That not only are the Sacraments necessary for salvation - (BOD is not a Sacrament) but the "desire" can put one in the state of grace - since when does that equate to defining salvation via BOD?


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Scriptorium - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Trent defined what with that canon? That not only are the Sacraments necessary for salvation - (BOD is not a Sacrament) but the "desire" can put one in the state of grace - since when does that equate to defining salvation via BOD?

Ah, the old aut = and theory. Can't be helped. I'm done. +PAX


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Grasshopper - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:49 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, and it has also made it clear that desire for the Sacraments, explicit and implicit, have potentially salvific value.  That Modernists use this as a wedge for indifferentism does not change that this is the case.

The Church cannot make clear that the "desire" for the sacraments suffices without contradicting her own infallible statements to the contrary.

Even though Trent did define just such, as Scriptorum just pointed out?  :eyeroll:

Trent defined what with that canon? That not only are the Sacraments necessary for salvation - (BOD is not a Sacrament) but the "desire" can put one in the state of grace - since when does that equate to defining salvation via BOD?

If it doesn't equate, what's the point? What good is dying in a state of grace if you're going to Hell anyway?


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Parmandur - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:49 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, and it has also made it clear that desire for the Sacraments, explicit and implicit, have potentially salvific value.  That Modernists use this as a wedge for indifferentism does not change that this is the case.

The Church cannot make clear that the "desire" for the sacraments suffices without contradicting her own infallible statements to the contrary.

Even though Trent did define just such, as Scriptorum just pointed out?  :eyeroll:

Proof-texting and misinterpreting Trent does not prove your point.  The doctrine it teaches is the Thomistic one, the one which comes from the Fathers of the Church and is upheld by the Magisterium - that there are three Baptisms, of water, desire and blood.  If you think Trent denies this, you are reading it wrong.  It's not that we can't provide evidence that reconciles these things - they are already reconciled.  There is no problem.

Trent defined what with that canon? That not only are the Sacraments necessary for salvation - (BOD is not a Sacrament) but the "desire" can put one in the state of grace - since when does that equate to defining salvation via BOD?



Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Stubborn - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:32 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Trent defined what with that canon? That not only are the Sacraments necessary for salvation - (BOD is not a Sacrament) but the "desire" can put one in the state of grace - since when does that equate to defining salvation via BOD?

Ah, the old aut = and theory. Can't be helped. I'm done. +PAX

It says what it says.


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Stubborn - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:33 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:49 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, and it has also made it clear that desire for the Sacraments, explicit and implicit, have potentially salvific value.  That Modernists use this as a wedge for indifferentism does not change that this is the case.

The Church cannot make clear that the "desire" for the sacraments suffices without contradicting her own infallible statements to the contrary.

Even though Trent did define just such, as Scriptorum just pointed out?  :eyeroll:

Trent defined what with that canon? That not only are the Sacraments necessary for salvation - (BOD is not a Sacrament) but the "desire" can put one in the state of grace - since when does that equate to defining salvation via BOD?

If it doesn't equate, what's the point? What good is dying in a state of grace if you're going to Hell anyway?

It does not say your going to hell - or heaven - or even that your gonna die. Again, read what it says.


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Parmandur - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:32 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Trent defined what with that canon? That not only are the Sacraments necessary for salvation - (BOD is not a Sacrament) but the "desire" can put one in the state of grace - since when does that equate to defining salvation via BOD?

Ah, the old aut = and theory. Can't be helped. I'm done. +PAX

It says what it says.

Sure; it says that the Sacrament or the desire for the sacrament are necessary for salvation.  The state of grace = salvation, as grasshopper points out.  True desire for penance or baptism or the Eucharist can stand in for the full sacrament.  This is Church teaching, of the highest authority.  


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Stubborn - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 09:37 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:24 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:49 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, and it has also made it clear that desire for the Sacraments, explicit and implicit, have potentially salvific value.  That Modernists use this as a wedge for indifferentism does not change that this is the case.

The Church cannot make clear that the "desire" for the sacraments suffices without contradicting her own infallible statements to the contrary.

Even though Trent did define just such, as Scriptorum just pointed out?  :eyeroll:

Proof-texting and misinterpreting Trent does not prove your point.  The doctrine it teaches is the Thomistic one, the one which comes from the Fathers of the Church and is upheld by the Magisterium - that there are three Baptisms, of water, desire and blood.  If you think Trent denies this, you are reading it wrong.  It's not that we can't provide evidence that reconciles these things - they are already reconciled.  There is no problem.

Trent defined what with that canon? That not only are the Sacraments necessary for salvation - (BOD is not a Sacrament) but the "desire" can put one in the state of grace - since when does that equate to defining salvation via BOD?

So there are 3 Baptisms now? What about Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Again, I ask for non-contradictory teachings.