FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - 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: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread (/showthread.php?tid=51948)

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


Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - FatherCekada - 12-31-2011

A nearby thread was supposedly initiated to discuss my article Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles., which may be found here:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

Unfortunately the pro-Feeney faction promptly hijacked the thread with their usual tiresome hermeneutics of Cantate Domino, Bonface VIII, etc.

My article did not treat these topics at all. Instead, its argument was as follows:

1. General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

2. Particular Fact: Catholic theologians DO hold the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood) by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

(See the table at the end of the article citing twenty-six approved Catholic theologians,.)

3. Conclusion: Therefore all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire (and baptism of blood).

I provided ample citations in my article to support points 1 and 2.

Does any member of the Feeney faction here deny #1?

Or does any member of the Feeney faction here deny #2?

Please stick to discussing the argument that I actually made.


Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - Someone1776 - 12-31-2011

(12-31-2011, 04:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: 1. General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Quote:Does any member of the Feeney faction here deny #1?

Not to be glib, but don't most traditionalists deny #1?  Most traditionalists believe that the Church hierarchy, as a whole, can teach error.  Once you accept this aren't you basically free to reject any Church teaching you like?  Doesn't this debate over BoD really show an underlying problem with the way most traditionalists approach theology in that they often skirt near Protestantism in their view of authority and the Church?  Most traditionalists ignore this point you keep making over and over, because they just don't accept it. 


Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - SouthpawLink - 12-31-2011

Father,
They deny point #1 by juxtaposing baptism of desire with their understanding of the Tridentine canons on the Sacraments in General and on Baptism, and claiming that they ought to adhere to a clearly infallible teaching, one which appears to exclude or contradict the "less-than-infallible" (according to them) doctrine of baptism of desire.  I'll stop here and allow them to speak for themselves.


Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - Stubborn - 12-31-2011

I don't see what the Red Herrings are.

The Sacrament of Baptism is where Trent solemnly defines water as being a necessity.
The Baptism of Desire is taught by theologians and does not require water at all.

Is that the Red Herrings?





Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - FatherCekada - 12-31-2011

(12-31-2011, 06:46 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I don't see what the Red Herrings are.

The Sacrament of Baptism solemnly defines water as being a necessity.
The Baptism of Desire is taught by theologians and does not require water at all.

Is that the Red Herrings?

To get to the particular question of baptism of desire itself (Am I obliged to adhere to baptism of desire or not?) one must first establish the general rules of the road (What types of doctrine is a Catholic obliged to adhere to?)

The "red herring" is attempting to discuss baptism of desire itself without first agreeing to or establishing the theological rules of the road.


Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - Stubborn - 12-31-2011

I read your link Father and I completely agree with the rules of the road as you wrote them -  (assuming those are the rules you are talking about).




Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - Resurrexi - 12-31-2011

(12-31-2011, 05:05 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 04:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: 1. General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Quote:Does any member of the Feeney faction here deny #1?

Not to be glib, but don't most traditionalists deny #1?  Most traditionalists believe that the Church hierarchy, as a whole, can teach error.  Once you accept this aren't you basically free to reject any Church teaching you like?  Doesn't this debate over BoD really show an underlying problem with the way most traditionalists approach theology in that they often skirt near Protestantism in their view of authority and the Church?  Most traditionalists ignore this point you keep making over and over, because they just don't accept it. 

I would affirm that the unanimous teaching of the Church's hierarchy as a whole--i.e., the ordinary and universal magisterium--is infallible; however, I would deny that a consensus of theologians is necessarily representative of the ordinary and universal magisterium.


Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - Scriptorium - 12-31-2011

(12-31-2011, 07:23 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I read your link Father and I completely agree with the rules of the road as you wrote them -  (assuming those are the rules you are talking about).

Here it comes:

[Image: hangmans-noose.jpg]


Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - Stubborn - 12-31-2011

(12-31-2011, 07:24 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 05:05 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 04:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: 1. General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Quote:Does any member of the Feeney faction here deny #1?

Not to be glib, but don't most traditionalists deny #1?  Most traditionalists believe that the Church hierarchy, as a whole, can teach error.  Once you accept this aren't you basically free to reject any Church teaching you like?  Doesn't this debate over BoD really show an underlying problem with the way most traditionalists approach theology in that they often skirt near Protestantism in their view of authority and the Church?  Most traditionalists ignore this point you keep making over and over, because they just don't accept it. 

I would affirm that the unanimous teaching of the Church's hierarchy as a whole--i.e., the ordinary and universal magisterium--is infallible; however, I would deny that a consensus of theologians is representative of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

I agree with you. I am more concerned with finding out what to believe when there is a contradiction in teachings.

For example, if the link has the rules, and I think it does, then will add to my confusion lol...................
A. General Principle:
• “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be
believed which are contained in the written word of God and in
tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a
solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING
POWER [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed.” Vatican
Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792.

Seems it says here that as long as we believe in either authority, we're ok. Normally I would be ok with that too - - - but in this particular case, there is an obvious - ok, seemingly obvious contradiction to some of us. 


Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - Resurrexi - 12-31-2011

(12-31-2011, 07:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:24 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 05:05 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 04:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: 1. General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Quote:Does any member of the Feeney faction here deny #1?

Not to be glib, but don't most traditionalists deny #1?  Most traditionalists believe that the Church hierarchy, as a whole, can teach error.  Once you accept this aren't you basically free to reject any Church teaching you like?  Doesn't this debate over BoD really show an underlying problem with the way most traditionalists approach theology in that they often skirt near Protestantism in their view of authority and the Church?  Most traditionalists ignore this point you keep making over and over, because they just don't accept it. 

I would affirm that the unanimous teaching of the Church's hierarchy as a whole--i.e., the ordinary and universal magisterium--is infallible; however, I would deny that a consensus of theologians is representative of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

I agree with you.

No, you don't. I'm not a Feenyist.

I accept "baptism" of desire, as taught by the Council of Trent.