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 - Old Salt - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 03:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What is the consequence for embracing BoD? Would a high level clergyman like Lefebvre been in mortal sin for embracing it?
Because Archbishop Lefebvre believed in BOD.


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

(12-29-2011, 03:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What is the consequence for embracing BoD? Would a high level clergyman like Lefebvre been in mortal sin for embracing it?

I don't know what the consequence is or if people who embrace it commit Mortal Sin or not - that's for God or the Pope to say IMO.

Fr. Wathen wrote: the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

This makes probably the most sense to me (I don't expect others will feel the same) in that because so many people believe in some version of BOD that there may well be no sin involved - hell, I dunno - I'm wanting to know who the hell are we supposed to believe myself lol


Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - Someone1776 - 12-29-2011

(12-29-2011, 03:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What is the consequence for embracing BoD? Would a high level clergyman like Lefebvre been in mortal sin for embracing it?

I don't know what the consequence is or if people who embrace it commit Mortal Sin or not - that's for God or the Pope to say IMO.

Fr. Wathen wrote: the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

This makes probably the most sense to me (I don't expect others will feel the same) in that because so many people believe in some version of BOD that there may well be no sin involved - hell, I dunno - I'm wanting to know who the hell are we supposed to believe myself lol

According to Father Cekada's chart that would mean it would be a mortal sin, which would lead to damnation.  It has often been pointed out here that prelates can't make an excuse based on ignorance because they should certainly know better. 

If the widespread belief of an error limits the sin involved, by that standard there would be no sin regarding holding a lot of the errors running around the church.

What are we supposed to believe? What the Church tell us. 


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

(12-29-2011, 03:46 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What is the consequence for embracing BoD? Would a high level clergyman like Lefebvre been in mortal sin for embracing it?

I don't know what the consequence is or if people who embrace it commit Mortal Sin or not - that's for God or the Pope to say IMO.

Fr. Wathen wrote: the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

This makes probably the most sense to me (I don't expect others will feel the same) in that because so many people believe in some version of BOD that there may well be no sin involved - hell, I dunno - I'm wanting to know who the hell are we supposed to believe myself lol

According to Father Cekada's chart that would mean it would be a mortal sin, which would lead to damnation.  It has often been pointed out here that prelates can't make an excuse based on ignorance because they should certainly know better. 

If the widespread belief of an error limits the sin involved, by that standard there would be no sin regarding holding a lot of the errors running around the church.

What are we supposed to believe? What the Church tell us. 
...and the Church teaches in the reality of BOD and BB


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

(12-29-2011, 03:46 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What is the consequence for embracing BoD? Would a high level clergyman like Lefebvre been in mortal sin for embracing it?

I don't know what the consequence is or if people who embrace it commit Mortal Sin or not - that's for God or the Pope to say IMO.

Fr. Wathen wrote: the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

This makes probably the most sense to me (I don't expect others will feel the same) in that because so many people believe in some version of BOD that there may well be no sin involved - hell, I dunno - I'm wanting to know who the hell are we supposed to believe myself lol

According to Father Cekada's chart that would mean it would be a mortal sin, which would lead to damnation.  It has often been pointed out here that prelates can't make an excuse based on ignorance because they should certainly know better. 

If the widespread belief of an error limits the sin involved, by that standard there would be no sin regarding holding a lot of the errors running around the church.

What are we supposed to believe? What the Church tell us. 
...and the Church teaches in the reality of BOD and BB


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

(12-29-2011, 03:46 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What is the consequence for embracing BoD? Would a high level clergyman like Lefebvre been in mortal sin for embracing it?

I don't know what the consequence is or if people who embrace it commit Mortal Sin or not - that's for God or the Pope to say IMO.

Fr. Wathen wrote: the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

This makes probably the most sense to me (I don't expect others will feel the same) in that because so many people believe in some version of BOD that there may well be no sin involved - hell, I dunno - I'm wanting to know who the hell are we supposed to believe myself lol

According to Father Cekada's chart that would mean it would be a mortal sin, which would lead to damnation.  It has often been pointed out here that prelates can't make an excuse based on ignorance because they should certainly know better. 

If the widespread belief of an error limits the sin involved, by that standard there would be no sin regarding holding a lot of the errors running around the church.

What are we supposed to believe? What the Church tell us. 

I agree error is error etc. -  but in this case, because *I believe* BOD *could be* proxima fidei or "nearly a doctrine" that there could be an exception because of who has been teaching it, namely, the Ordinary Magisterium. Either that the whole thing is a conspiracy theory that started after the modernists resurfaced 100 years ago and added BOD to all the catechisms and etc. which I don't buy.

So yes, what are we bound to? The certainly de fide teachings or the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium?


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

(12-29-2011, 03:55 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:46 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What are we supposed to believe? What the Church tell us. 
...and the Church teaches in the reality of BOD and BB

We heard you already! LOL

Says you that the Church teaches BOB and BB - does the canon below sound like ya gotta have water or is it saying desire works too?

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.


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

BOD is De Fide according to Otts book on dogma and doctrine.


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

(12-29-2011, 04:00 PM)Old Salt Wrote: BOD is De Fide according to Otts book on dogma and doctrine.

That water is a necessity is de fide according to Trent.
Who do you believe?


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

(12-29-2011, 10:10 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Now, I believe in BOD but the only person that I can ever say to have experienced it was St. Dismus.  He was never baptized and yet Christ promise him a spot in Heaven.  Unless scripture is wrong.
(12-29-2011, 03:02 PM)Old Salt Wrote: The Holy Innocents are in Paradise because of Baptism of Blood.

Both St. Dismas and the Holy Innocents died during the old dispensation.

Arguing for baptism of desire or baptism of blood from examples in the Old Testament is besides the point. All the righteous of the Old Testament went down to linger in hades waiting for Christ, where they would be preached at and baptised after His death on the cross. That's why we believe He descended to hell after death and proclaim it in the creed.