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 - Jenn - 12-30-2011

(12-30-2011, 01:51 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: What is not being understood is that the canon of Trent is not being denied. That is de fide plainly. What is being asserted is that Trent never intended to close the way for something like Baptism of Desire.

If Trent stated plainly that actual water is necessary for Baptism, then by default that closes the way for any other form of Baptism. You cannot say that you aren't denying Trent and then in the next breath deny what Trent is saying. If you say that actual water is not necessary for Baptism, then by default you are denying Trent. Either it says actual water or it doesn't. Clearly, it does. Additionally, since the Holy Ghost prevents an infallible statement from containing error, we cannot make assumptions about what Trent "intended". If we're going to make assumptions about what Trent intended, then we are also making assumptions about what the Holy Ghost intended. If Trent said actual water, and the Holy Ghost protects infallible statements from error, then we can only come to one conclusion: actual water is necessary.


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - SouthpawLink - 12-30-2011

(12-30-2011, 06:25 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 01:51 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: What is not being understood is that the canon of Trent is not being denied. That is de fide plainly. What is being asserted is that Trent never intended to close the way for something like Baptism of Desire.

If Trent stated plainly that actual water is necessary for Baptism, then by default that closes the way for any other form of Baptism. You cannot say that you aren't denying Trent and then in the next breath deny what Trent is saying. If you say that actual water is not necessary for Baptism, then by default you are denying Trent. Either it says actual water or it doesn't. Clearly, it does. Additionally, since the Holy Ghost prevents an infallible statement from containing error, we cannot make assumptions about what Trent "intended". If we're going to make assumptions about what Trent intended, then we are also making assumptions about what the Holy Ghost intended. If Trent said actual water, and the Holy Ghost protects infallible statements from error, then we can only come to one conclusion: actual water is necessary.

From Fr. Cekada:

"I would then follow with a raft of material from other post-Tridentine theologians, and then perhaps throw in something from the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique about the specific heresies (Luther’s teaching that beer or milk could be used to confer the sacrament of baptism; Calvin’s, that 'water' in John 3:5 was only a metaphor for the Holy Ghost) that canon 2 was formulated to condemn."

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

This is confirmed by other magisterial teachings of the Church, namely that neither saliva (Denz. 412) nor beer (n. 447) are acceptable "matter" for the Sacrament of Baptism.  That natural water alone is acceptable, see also: Denz. 430, 449, 482, 542, 574a, 696, 858 and canon 737, sec. I of the 1917 CIC (Systematic Index of Dogmatic and Moral Matters, p. 37).

In other words, the context in which the anathema was given is key.


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Doce Me - 12-30-2011

(12-30-2011, 07:06 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 06:25 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 01:51 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: What is not being understood is that the canon of Trent is not being denied. That is de fide plainly. What is being asserted is that Trent never intended to close the way for something like Baptism of Desire.

If Trent stated plainly that actual water is necessary for Baptism, then by default that closes the way for any other form of Baptism. You cannot say that you aren't denying Trent and then in the next breath deny what Trent is saying. If you say that actual water is not necessary for Baptism, then by default you are denying Trent. Either it says actual water or it doesn't. Clearly, it does. Additionally, since the Holy Ghost prevents an infallible statement from containing error, we cannot make assumptions about what Trent "intended". If we're going to make assumptions about what Trent intended, then we are also making assumptions about what the Holy Ghost intended. If Trent said actual water, and the Holy Ghost protects infallible statements from error, then we can only come to one conclusion: actual water is necessary.

From Fr. Cekada:

"I would then follow with a raft of material from other post-Tridentine theologians, and then perhaps throw in something from the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique about the specific heresies (Luther’s teaching that beer or milk could be used to confer the sacrament of baptism; Calvin’s, that 'water' in John 3:5 was only a metaphor for the Holy Ghost) that canon 2 was formulated to condemn."

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

This is confirmed by other magisterial teachings of the Church, namely that neither saliva (Denz. 412) nor beer (n. 447) are acceptable "matter" for the Sacrament of Baptism.  That natural water alone is acceptable, see also: Denz. 430, 449, 482, 542, 574a, 696, 858 and canon 737, sec. I of the 1917 CIC (Systematic Index of Dogmatic and Moral Matters, p. 37).

In other words, the context in which the anathema was given is key.

The words "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema." is thus speaking of the sacrament of baptism, and condemning invalid matter. The word baptism by itself commonly refers to the sacrament.  This doesn't rule out baptism of desire, which of course doesn't need water, but is not discussed here.


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - columb - 12-30-2011

(12-30-2011, 08:33 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 07:06 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 06:25 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 01:51 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: What is not being understood is that the canon of Trent is not being denied. That is de fide plainly. What is being asserted is that Trent never intended to close the way for something like Baptism of Desire.

If Trent stated plainly that actual water is necessary for Baptism, then by default that closes the way for any other form of Baptism. You cannot say that you aren't denying Trent and then in the next breath deny what Trent is saying. If you say that actual water is not necessary for Baptism, then by default you are denying Trent. Either it says actual water or it doesn't. Clearly, it does. Additionally, since the Holy Ghost prevents an infallible statement from containing error, we cannot make assumptions about what Trent "intended". If we're going to make assumptions about what Trent intended, then we are also making assumptions about what the Holy Ghost intended. If Trent said actual water, and the Holy Ghost protects infallible statements from error, then we can only come to one conclusion: actual water is necessary.

From Fr. Cekada:

"I would then follow with a raft of material from other post-Tridentine theologians, and then perhaps throw in something from the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique about the specific heresies (Luther’s teaching that beer or milk could be used to confer the sacrament of baptism; Calvin’s, that 'water' in John 3:5 was only a metaphor for the Holy Ghost) that canon 2 was formulated to condemn."

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

This is confirmed by other magisterial teachings of the Church, namely that neither saliva (Denz. 412) nor beer (n. 447) are acceptable "matter" for the Sacrament of Baptism.  That natural water alone is acceptable, see also: Denz. 430, 449, 482, 542, 574a, 696, 858 and canon 737, sec. I of the 1917 CIC (Systematic Index of Dogmatic and Moral Matters, p. 37).

In other words, the context in which the anathema was given is key.

The words "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary in baptism, and therefore interprets metaphorically the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema." is thus speaking of the sacrament of baptism, and condemning invalid matter. The word baptism by itself commonly refers to the sacrament.  This doesn't rule out baptism of desire, which of course doesn't need water, but is not discussed here.

I agree with this and therein lies the problem. If BoD does not require water and yet is sufficient for salvation, what becomes of the words of Our Lord, "Unless a man be born again of water etc.." Words which Trent has confirmed must be accepted as it is written?


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Doce Me - 12-30-2011

Man frequently uses the words "unless" and "necessary"  allowing for a deliberately unspoken exception.  We say "water is necessary for tomatoes to grow", and it IS truly necessary, yet God may provide a miraculous exception.   A mother may say "Unless you get in the car in 1 minute no dessert for you", and she is not lying or forgetful or powerless,  yet if the child twists his ankle, she makes an exception, and not by rushing the child only  to make the 1 minute deadline.  How foolish would the mother be to add the words "but if you really are unable, I will make an exception"?  God allows men to "twist their ankle" on the way to obey a command, and does not count this a sin, but doesn't make such exceptions explicit!    It doesn't matter that God has absolute power and can foresee everything, He still allows such impossibility for man and can make an exception [i]without being explict - or saying "probably".  God is more merciful and wise than a mother.

God CAN
1) give Baptism via water, in the ordinary way
2) give Baptism via water, bringing a preacher and water by a miracle
3) give Baptism of Desire, by the desire and grace that ONLY HE can instill in a soul

If you disallow 3 you are binding Almighty God to water, and denying that all things are possible to Him.  (In my sample, a mother is not bound to drag her injured child to meet the deadline, for she set the deadline.  God is not bound to obey the command that He meant for US!)

Using the word "Unless" does not imply a truth binding the Trinity.  It implies a command that binds us in the eyes of God

Imagine a great king, making a proclamation "Unless a knight retrieves a diamond from our magical mines today, he shall not compete for the hand of my daughter". The solemnity of the words does not bind the king to make no exception if a knight is heroic but cannot meet the deadline - no matter what power the king may have to magically transport the knight.


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Scriptorium - 12-30-2011

No one is denying the necessity, as I have stated many times. What is stated is the necessity is not absolute but relative. What is hard to understand about this? Do we need to run down the perhaps hundred of necessities that God and the Church places on us that are not absolute. Here, let's try this again:

“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 179 under Baptism)

Sed quamvis haec ita sint non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramenlum huic hominum generi statim tribuere sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet, quum illis qui rationis usu praediti sunt baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam ct iustitiam si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint (Pars 2, Caput 2, Quaestio 25, p. 145).

God help you if that doesn't suffice!

That is, baptism of desire. In fact, the Church teaches that delaying adult baptism a little is advantageous. But if such a possibility as baptism of desire was impossible, then such a delay would be positively sinful, as in the case of infant baptism, which is not to be delayed.

I am sorry, but you are obstinate, and holding to an utterly unfounded reservation. An relative necessity is a necessity that is only operative under the appropriate conditions. At this point, there is no further debate. This is just unCatholic to utterly deny to see this point, which is not complex. I can understand having question about a mystery like the Trinity, but this is elementary logic. Please review this thread over and pray about it. Anyone who denies the possibility of baptism of desire is on extremely sandy ground, religiously and logically. This and EENS people have trouble with because of their extreme legalism. Look at it for what is is, an extreme view which the Church before and after VII rejected.


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - columb - 12-31-2011

(12-30-2011, 10:09 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Man frequently uses the words "unless" and "necessary"  allowing for a deliberately unspoken exception.  We say "water is necessary for tomatoes to grow", and it IS truly necessary, yet God may provide a miraculous exception.   A mother may say "Unless you get in the car in 1 minute no dessert for you", and she is not lying or forgetful or powerless,  yet if the child twists his ankle, she makes an exception, and not by rushing the child only  to make the 1 minute deadline.  How foolish would the mother be to add the words "but if you really are unable, I will make an exception"?  God allows men to "twist their ankle" on the way to obey a command, and does not count this a sin, but doesn't make such exceptions explicit!    It doesn't matter that God has absolute power and can foresee everything, He still allows such impossibility for man and can make an exception [i]without being explict - or saying "probably".  God is more merciful and wise than a mother.

God CAN
1) give Baptism via water, in the ordinary way
2) give Baptism via water, bringing a preacher and water by a miracle
3) give Baptism of Desire, by the desire and grace that ONLY HE can instill in a soul

If you disallow 3 you are binding Almighty God to water, and denying that all things are possible to Him.  (In my sample, a mother is not bound to drag her injured child to meet the deadline, for she set the deadline.  God is not bound to obey the command that He meant for US!)

Using the word "Unless" does not imply a truth binding the Trinity.  It implies a command that binds us in the eyes of God

Imagine a great king, making a proclamation "Unless a knight retrieves a diamond from our magical mines today, he shall not compete for the hand of my daughter". The solemnity of the words does not bind the king to make no exception if a knight is heroic but cannot meet the deadline - no matter what power the king may have to magically transport the knight.

Thank you Doce Me. On the face of it those analogies come very close to to explaining the allowablilty (if there be such a word) of BoD in certain circumstances and the first time I've heard it explained in this way.
The mother and child analogy works well in human terms where the mother of course does not have infinite power to prevent her child tripping up. This analogy IMO fails when we are talking of Divine power. He who established Baptism as a necessary means to salvation has also the power to bring His elect (all who so seek Him with a sincere heart) to the waters of Baptism.
The generally held view of the requirements for the reception of BoD are  a) Perfect contrition,  b) Perfect charity, and  c) A genuine desire to receive the sacrament -I say "generally held view" because there is also a view that implicit desire or invincible ignorance could also be acceptable dispositions (or rather non dispositions) for some who will also be included among those saved in this way (which brings us back to the problem of a working definition of BoD that all can at least be clear on).

Another place where I see the analogy failing when applying it to the Divine is in the theological principle that God will not refuse to provide all that is most efficacious to the soul of those who ask with the proper disposition. According to the requirements for one who merits salvation by the application of Bod, the proper disposition is already present, i.e, perfect contrition, perfect charity and sincere desire; the sincere desire no doubt being manifest in ardent prayer that one be delivered from an untimely death and be preserved to the reception of the sacrament.

I see similar problems with the king analogy when transferring it to the Divine but for brevity sake I won't comment for now but will move on to the three possibilities you list as follows.

God CAN
1) give Baptism via water, in the ordinary way
2) give Baptism via water, bringing a preacher and water by a miracle
3) give Baptism of Desire, by the desire and grace that ONLY HE can instill in a soul

Numbers 1 and 2 can be achieved without God moving outside His own infallible teaching on the necessity of water Baptism.
Number 3 requires of God to suspend (which He can) his own decree but which we know He won't for He is true to His own word, in order to bring about something which He can just as easily achieve within the confines of his own law without any contradiction.
The words God would not be contradicting are those upheld by Trent 6, Chap 4, " As it is written", Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God,"

One could argue that if the water is not necessary neither is the spirit. If what you say be true (that God did not wish the water to be taken as an absolute necessity) then the same can be said of the spirit. Can it not?













Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Jenn - 12-31-2011

(12-30-2011, 10:15 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: No one is denying the necessity, as I have stated many times. What is stated is the necessity is not absolute but relative.

If Trent says that actual water is necessary, even giving a warning to those who would attempt to turn it into a metaphor, and you are saying that it isn't necessary in some cases, then you are denying it.

Quote: Here, let's try this again:

“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 179 under Baptism)

Sed quamvis haec ita sint non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramenlum huic hominum generi statim tribuere sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet, quum illis qui rationis usu praediti sunt baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam ct iustitiam si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint (Pars 2, Caput 2, Quaestio 25, p. 145).

God help you if that doesn't suffice!

That is, baptism of desire. In fact, the Church teaches that delaying adult baptism a little is advantageous. But if such a possibility as baptism of desire was impossible, then such a delay would be positively sinful, as in the case of infant baptism, which is not to be delayed.

]I am sorry, but you are obstinate, and holding to an utterly unfounded reservation.

Utterly unfounded? You must be joking. A few more quotes for you:

Quote:St. Gregory Nazianzen:

If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? If you prefer, we will put it this way: If, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You would then be satisfied to desire glory, as though that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it!”  (Oration on Divine Light, XL, #23)

Quote:St. Ambrose:

One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized… Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water, for ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.’ Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace." (De Mysteriis, From the Divine Office)

Quote:Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:

“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.

Quote:St. Fulgentius:

Let no doubt shake our mind from this view; let no one say that a man is saved unless he comes to this bodily immersion; at any rate let us not say that he can be saved without the sacrament of baptism purely on the confession of faith. For he who believes and is baptized, will be saved. And as for that young man whom we know to have believed and confessed his faith: we maintain that it was through the sacrament of baptism that he was saved. If anyone is not baptized, not only in ignorance, but even knowingly, he can in no way be saved. For his path to salvation was through the confession, and salvation itself was in baptism.
____________________________________________________________________________

Quote:An relative necessity is a necessity that is only operative under the appropriate conditions. At this point, there is no further debate. This is just unCatholic to utterly deny to see this point, which is not complex. I can understand having question about a mystery like the Trinity, but this is elementary logic. Please review this thread over and pray about it. Anyone who denies the possibility of baptism of desire is on extremely sandy ground, religiously and logically. This and EENS people have trouble with because of their extreme legalism. Look at it for what is is, an extreme view which the Church before and after VII rejected.

I think I'll close with:

[quote]Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:

“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” (Denz. 1800)


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - INPEFESS - 12-31-2011

(12-30-2011, 10:15 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: No one is denying the necessity, as I have stated many times. What is stated is the necessity is not absolute but relative. What is hard to understand about this? Do we need to run down the perhaps hundred of necessities that God and the Church places on us that are not absolute. Here, let's try this again:

[...]

An relative necessity is a necessity that is only operative under the appropriate conditions.

Yes, I believe this was cited before (and, for the record, to show how important the issue of "necessity" is in Catholic theology, there is an entire article devoted to it):
Catholic Encyclopedia: Necessity Wrote:Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.



Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Someone1776 - 12-31-2011

Father Cekada's original post that spawned this thread appears to have been prophetic: 

(12-28-2011, 10:20 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: As I point out in the article, the underlying difficulty with Feeneyism is that it rejects the principles that form the very foundation for the science of Catholic theology.

It's a waste of time debating with someone like this, because you have no common first principles at all. It's like arguing over the structure of a Mozart symphony with someone who knows nothing of musical forms and is tone deaf to boot.