Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(12-31-2011, 04:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Just a minor correction: the infants are not "innocent" themselves, they're born sinners with the guilt of original sin. None are good but God.

Yes, I should have clarified that they are innocent of actual sin, not original sin.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 03:40 PM)jordanawef Wrote: Stubborn, we went over this a few months ago, about how the Sacrament as a precept remains always, and how what is called "Baptism of Desire," is not a Sacrament, and does not remit the necessary precept to receive the Sacrament, but rather, the desire for baptism can effect an extra-Sacramental justification.  I also told you before we talked about this a few months ago, even longer ago, that if this was important to you, to go to the nearest pontifical university, buy a plane ticket or drive, and check out 3 things: the Catechisms since Trent, the Theology Manuals used to train our Priests, and most importantly, you should check out the commentaries on the Council of Trent, of which there are many, and look at the section of Justification, and you will find the same teaching regarding this extra-sacramental justification, and the formulations of what later would be called "Baptism of Desire," specifically, as formulated by St. Alphonsus Liguori.  You said that you would have rather taken a poll amongst fish eaters, as if crowd sourcing Theology is more authoritative, as if the Church learning is more important than the Church Teaching.  Moreover, you expressed some sort of repugnance with my suggestion that you do this, in that it was not possible or worth it to you to make such an undertaking.  Now, my problem with that is, that this is the Faith, and since you are being warned that you stand in direct contradiction to the above, and keep to your stubborn private interpretations, you being untrained in Scholastic thought, you persist in spouting what the Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori called "De Fide."  Now I say, that making this trip to a library would be good for your soul, and if you care about your Faith you will do it.  If it is still not worth your time, you can take it from me, someone who has done the above.  This is the constant teaching of the Church.  Your feeneyism is a modern invention in reaction to Universal Salvation.  You have erred in the opposite direction of the excess, and are now in defect, and this defect is a novelty of the 20th Century.  This defect is in direct contradiction to Tradition of the Church.  This defect is an erroneous interoperation due to not understanding scholastic principles and terms, and is a symptom of the problem of Vatican II, where the Church Learning were thrown into a position where they needed to arise to a higher level, yet, with that comes great danger, because Denziger and an internet connection only get you so far, and throw in that a lack of humility when dealing with the Holy Faith, and you have a disaster.

What more can we say to you?  If this was my forum, we would not deviate from the Doctors of the Church, the Councils of the Church, the sanctioned and approved commentaries on the Councils, the Manuals, the Catechisms, the Commentaries on the Summa, St. Thomas himself in the Summa, Saint Alphonsus Ligoru, the Holy Office, Rome, the Roman Congregations, all who teach what has come to be known as Baptism of Desire.

We as Catholics must stand with the above, and not our interpretations of their interpretations either, but rather, with their precise interpretations.  I for one, stand with the above list.  The list of whom you stand with is the excommunicated Fr. Feeney, and the Brothers Diamond, young internet theologians, and perhaps a random de Costa bishop or two - not good company, and in any case, good company or no, in direct contradiction to the constant, deliberate, well thought-out, precise, hundreds-of-years-considered position and teaching of the Catholic Church.

For me, all I really need to see a Catechism, and tell me that St. Alphonsus taught it in the Theologia Moralis, and you have me sold.  What more can be done for people like you, I do not know.  The Faith is there for your discovery, yet you think you have it and you are one of its last defenders, and this puts you in a voraciously defensive position.  You thinking that you know, prevents you from knowing.  If you would just get up out of your computer chair and head to that library, you will find the Faith waiting for you.

Well, depending on which catechism you use, you'll get a different definition. Trent's catechism never speaks about BOD's  accidental death or salvation from it. OTOH, the latest CCC rewards salvation via BOD. So I suppose if you're gonna believe in salvation via BOD, it really does not matter that Trent's catechism teaches no such thing - right?

And for whatever it's worth, I have a complete set of Theology manuals from 1908 and have no need to fly, drive or visit a modernist pontifical university when any elementary school student can read the contradiction plainly - it must take a lot of education to read what is not written, then defend what is not written, that's all I can say about that.

Whether one believes in BOD or not is not the real reason that I started this thread. I started it because there is a real, obvious contradiction when it comes to this Sacrament.

A) BOD teaches water is not necessary.
B) Trent teaches that water is necessary.

For whoever has difficulties with comprehension, A contradicts B.
For whoever still says that no contradiction exists, well, they must have a reading and comprehension problem.

SOME members of the Ordinary Magisterium do teach salvation via BOD - we all already know that to be fact. I do not agree that one needs to be a theologian with a masters degree to see the obvious contradiction - which is why I asked in the OP - who are we to believe?

It boils down to BOD being a completely different baptism all together from the one defined at Trent. THAT is the truth of the matter. *That* I can agree to. *That* I understand. *That* is obvious to me - and I am not saying I agree BOD saves. All I am trying to do here is to get some BOD supporter to admit the obvious here - namely, that BOD is a completely different Baptism than the one defined at Trent. 

Once someone who believes in BOD will finally do that, then maybe we can move forward.   


Reply
(12-31-2011, 03:54 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 03:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

You can have a laundry list of merely apparent contradictions such as these, and get as hung up on them as you are over the Desire for Baptism, yet you should not, and rather should submit your mind to the l list of where I tell you these teachings are found, which is to say indeed, the founts of the Faith, and in addition to the above, you can add the Sacred Liturgy, in its commemorations of unbaptised saints, and in addition to that, you can add the Commentaries of the Summa, where the loftiest doctrines are taught, and you can also add the Fathers and the Popes throughout time.

This is where the Faith is found.

Maybe where you need to start is changing your forum name from Stubborn to Docile, because that is what is needed in these days, docility to the Truth; stubbornness can go.

I've delt with too many docile liberal neo's in my life, I choose to be stubborn in the faith till I die - it's the only way I know how to (and hope and pray to) persevere till the end. You see, I cannot depend on salvation via an unforeseen accidental death - even if I am in the state of sanctifying grace that I hope and pray to die with.

I honestly did not think this thread was going to go more than a page or two lol - I shoulda known I guess. It really is surprising that people do not see the contradiction - or perhaps they deny the contradiction? Who knows?

I'm glad Vetus and Jenn post so clearly - I can understand people getting the wrong impression about what I'm saying, but dang, them two are clear as a bell in the things they say. So thank you to both of you!
Reply
(12-31-2011, 03:48 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
Jenn Wrote:On another note, I'm also more than a little amazed that proponents of BOD don't wonder why the most innocent of all, the unborn and unbaptized infants who pass away, are apparently assigned to Limbo, while the unbaptized above the age of reason, guilty of committing actual sins, can get to Heaven by BOD.

Jenn,
A quote from Pope Pius XII, which I provided in reply #168, should answer your question.  What's more, the idea that the Tridentine Fathers could contradict themselves in a catechism published only a few years later and that the most highly educated Churchmen, including sainted Pontiffs and Doctors, could so horribly misinterpret Trent for 400 years is also ludicrous.  There was no notable adversary to the Church's teaching on baptism of desire from 1566 up until 1949... doesn't that say something?

Stubborn and Vetus,
God bless and have a Happy and Blessed New Year.

:tiphat:

And a Happy and Holy New Year to you as well!

:tiphat:

Reply
It's curious to notice that, after admitting for the possibility of baptism of desire and blood in his early writings, St. Augustine's final position on baptism was that sacramental baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Quote:St. Augustine: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever!...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments!….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow?...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (The Faith of Our Fathers, Fr. Jurgens, bk. 3, 1496; On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7.)

St. Augustine: “Note that I speak now both to the faithful and to catechumens. What did I mention in connection with the spittle and the clay? This: the Word became flesh. The catechumens can hear this; but just listening to it does not accomplish that for which they were anointed. Let them hasten to the font if they seek the Light.” (The Divine Office, bk., p. 1620, from Fourth Week in Lent, Treatise 44 on John.)

St. Augustine: “What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism. It is, then, by water, the visible and outward sign of grace, and by the Spirit, Who produces the inward gift of grace, which cancels the bond of sin and restores God’s gift to human nature, that the man who was born solely of Adam in the first place is afterwards re-born solely in Christ.” (“On John,” 15:4, Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, Fr. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1855, vol. 35.)

St. Augustine: “Or how can they fail to be saved by water…the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, ‘The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.’ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.” (On Baptism (De Baptismo), 5:28.)

St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin 3, 12: “As for the thief, although in God’s judgment he might be reckoned among those who are purified [ie., as in, a second time, that is, after baptism and his fall] by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized. For, to say nothing of the opinion that he might have been sprinkled with the water which gushed at the same time with the blood out of the Lord's side, as he hung on the cross next to Him, and thus have been washed with a baptism of the most sacred kind, what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul. If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord’s saying to St. Peter, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,” what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this,--Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism we should never entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?”

And, indeed, as I had pointed out earlier, it stands to reason that God makes sure His elect obtain all that is necessary for salvation, including baptism. St. Augustine agrees:

Quote:St. Augustine: “Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator.  Because, of these men, Our Lord says: ‘This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’” (Against Julian 5, 4)
Reply
"So I suppose if you're gonna believe in salvation via BOD, it really does not matter that Trent's catechism teaches no such thing - right?"

Wrong.

"And for whatever it's worth, I have a complete set of Theology manuals from 1908 and have no need to fly,"

Wrong.  You do have need.  Consider the voice of St. Alphonsus calling back from his grave to tell you you do, with whom you have an issue.

"A) BOD teaches water is not necessary."

Wrong.  BOD does not teach that water is not necessary.  I reject the major, I beg your pardon.  Baptism of desire leaves in tact the Divine Precept to Receive the Sacrament of Holy Baptism of which, natural water is the only matter.

"All I am trying to do here is to get some BOD supporter to admit the obvious here - namely, that BOD is a completely different Baptism than the one defined at Trent."

You can have me for insofar as the following:  BOD is not a Sacrament.  It does not impart a Character, which is a loaded theological term.  Baptism is a Sacrament and imparts a Character.  The differences are not limited that.  Baptism of Desire is not strictly a Baptism, and it is not the Sacramental Baptism that was talked about at Trent.  It comes under a different section of Trent, the section on justification.  Baptism of desire is called a baptism because it effects some of what Sacramental Baptism effects, namely, the grace of ***Justification***!  And the Grace of Justification is a specific loaded term, that has lots of theology behind it alone.

To say that this is a matter that has been confused by "master's degrees," is simply to kick Our Lord Jesus Christ square in his mouth.  These master's degrees came from the Church, approved by the Church, and thus, came from the lips of our Lord.  You spurning this00 ancient and venerable wisdom is to spurn our Lord Himself and His Love for His sons and daughters who were willing to submit to the Church by learning what Christ taught them through His Church.

I find this terrible that you continue in this vain.

That this is permitted is an outrage.

I continue, most understandingly and deliberately, that this is a traditionalist problem of lay people.  The traditionalist sees something awry in V2, but does not come to the correct conclusions, and thus has the terrible problem of what to believe and not believe.  For me, the problem is settled, and the Deposit of Faith for me is as pristine as the snow that hasn't fallen in my part of the country yet.

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is as infallible as is the Extraordinary Magisterium, period.  Both are infallible.  Both require your assent.  Both are pristine.  Within the Theological Notae, all but those admitted as probable are Certain, which means, you must be certain about them.  The less than certain are probable, which means they are probable, and must be held as such.  The degrees of censorship are also to be held, no more, no less, than what they are given.

Same goes for the Desire for Baptism.  It must be held as formulated in the various locii, no more, or no less, as was held before.  You do not need to be an innovator, extrapolator, or clarifacator.  You need to be a docile submitter.

As for the "Desire for the Priesthood," or the "Desire for Marriage" that Vetus Ordo brought up.  No.  Nobody teaches such things.  These are fancy inventions of conjectural self-assertion.  Baptism is Baptism, Marriage is Marriage.  Why can these things not be equated or applied equally as such?  They are each unto their own and have their own teachings.  For the same reason you can not carve a statue out of grass, as you would wood from a tree, you can not apply teachings of Baptism to Marriage or the Priesthood.  But both grass and trees are plants is the argument.  
Reply
(12-31-2011, 05:49 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 03:54 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 03:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

You can have a laundry list of merely apparent contradictions such as these, and get as hung up on them as you are over the Desire for Baptism, yet you should not, and rather should submit your mind to the l list of where I tell you these teachings are found, which is to say indeed, the founts of the Faith, and in addition to the above, you can add the Sacred Liturgy, in its commemorations of unbaptised saints, and in addition to that, you can add the Commentaries of the Summa, where the loftiest doctrines are taught, and you can also add the Fathers and the Popes throughout time.

This is where the Faith is found.

Maybe where you need to start is changing your forum name from Stubborn to Docile, because that is what is needed in these days, docility to the Truth; stubbornness can go.

I've delt with too many docile liberal neo's in my life, I choose to be stubborn in the faith till I die - it's the only way I know how to (and hope and pray to) persevere till the end. You see, I cannot depend on salvation via an unforeseen accidental death - even if I am in the state of sanctifying grace that I hope and pray to die with.

I honestly did not think this thread was going to go more than a page or two lol - I shoulda known I guess. It really is surprising that people do not see the contradiction - or perhaps they deny the contradiction? Who knows?

I'm glad Vetus and Jenn post so clearly - I can understand people getting the wrong impression about what I'm saying, but dang, them two are clear as a bell in the things they say. So thank you to both of you!

And the Baltimore Catechism is not clear?  Be careful what Faith you die stubborn in - Saint and Doctor Alphonsus Liguori calls this de Fide, which you know, and which Christ knew before He canonized him.
Reply
duplicate
Reply
(12-31-2011, 06:40 PM)jordanawef Wrote: "So I suppose if you're gonna believe in salvation via BOD, it really does not matter that Trent's catechism teaches no such thing - right?"

Wrong.

"And for whatever it's worth, I have a complete set of Theology manuals from 1908 and have no need to fly,"

Wrong.  You do have need.  Consider the voice of St. Alphonsus calling back from his grave to tell you you do, with whom you have an issue.

"A) BOD teaches water is not necessary."

Wrong.  BOD does not teach that water is not necessary.  I reject the major, I beg your pardon.  Baptism of desire leaves in tact the Divine Precept to Receive the Sacrament of Holy Baptism of which, natural water is the only matter.

"All I am trying to do here is to get some BOD supporter to admit the obvious here - namely, that BOD is a completely different Baptism than the one defined at Trent."

You can have me for insofar as the following:  BOD is not a Sacrament.  It does not impart a Character, which is a loaded theological term.  Baptism is a Sacrament and imparts a Character.  The differences are not limited that.  Baptism of Desire is not strictly a Baptism, and it is not the Sacramental Baptism that was talked about at Trent.  It comes under a different section of Trent, the section on justification.  Baptism of desire is called a baptism because it effects some of what Sacramental Baptism effects, namely, the grace of ***Justification***!  And the Grace of Justification is a specific loaded term, that has lots of theology behind it alone.

Wrong.



(12-31-2011, 06:40 PM)jordanawef Wrote: To say that this is a matter that has been confused by "master's degrees," is simply to kick Our Lord Jesus Christ square in his mouth.  These master's degrees came from the Church, approved by the Church, and thus, came from the lips of our Lord.  You spurning this00 ancient and venerable wisdom is to spurn our Lord Himself and His Love for His sons and daughters who were willing to submit to the Church by learning what Christ taught them through His Church.

I find this terrible that you continue in this vain.

That this is permitted is an outrage.

YOU find it an outrage? I'm the one who believes Our Lord did not make idle commands to which we are bound.


(12-31-2011, 06:40 PM)jordanawef Wrote: I continue, most understandingly and deliberately, that this is a traditionalist problem of lay people.  The traditionalist sees something awry in V2, but does not come to the correct conclusions, and thus has the terrible problem of what to believe and not believe.  For me, the problem is settled, and the Deposit of Faith for me is as pristine as the snow that hasn't fallen in my part of the country yet.

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is as infallible as is the Extraordinary Magisterium, period.  Both are infallible.  Both require your assent.  Both are pristine.  Within the Theological Notae, all but those admitted as probable are Certain, which means, you must be certain about them.  The less than certain are probable, which means they are probable, and must be held as such.  The degrees of censorship are also to be held, no more, no less, than what they are given.

Same goes for the Desire for Baptism.  It must be held as formulated in the various locii, no more, or no less, as was held before.  You do not need to be an innovator, extrapolator, or clarifacator.  You need to be a docile submitter.

As for the "Desire for the Priesthood," or the "Desire for Marriage" that Vetus Ordo brought up.  No.  Nobody teaches such things.  These are fancy inventions of conjectural self-assertion.  Baptism is Baptism, Marriage is Marriage.  Why can these things not be equated or applied equally as such?  They are each unto their own and have their own teachings.  For the same reason you can not carve a statue out of grass, as you would wood from a tree, you can not apply teachings of Baptism to Marriage or the Priesthood.  But both grass and trees are plants is the argument.  

You fail to answer the question - again.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 06:41 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 05:49 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 03:54 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 03:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

You can have a laundry list of merely apparent contradictions such as these, and get as hung up on them as you are over the Desire for Baptism, yet you should not, and rather should submit your mind to the l list of where I tell you these teachings are found, which is to say indeed, the founts of the Faith, and in addition to the above, you can add the Sacred Liturgy, in its commemorations of unbaptised saints, and in addition to that, you can add the Commentaries of the Summa, where the loftiest doctrines are taught, and you can also add the Fathers and the Popes throughout time.

This is where the Faith is found.

Maybe where you need to start is changing your forum name from Stubborn to Docile, because that is what is needed in these days, docility to the Truth; stubbornness can go.

I've delt with too many docile liberal neo's in my life, I choose to be stubborn in the faith till I die - it's the only way I know how to (and hope and pray to) persevere till the end. You see, I cannot depend on salvation via an unforeseen accidental death - even if I am in the state of sanctifying grace that I hope and pray to die with.

I honestly did not think this thread was going to go more than a page or two lol - I shoulda known I guess. It really is surprising that people do not see the contradiction - or perhaps they deny the contradiction? Who knows?

I'm glad Vetus and Jenn post so clearly - I can understand people getting the wrong impression about what I'm saying, but dang, them two are clear as a bell in the things they say. So thank you to both of you!

And the Baltimore Catechism is not clear?  Be careful what Faith you die stubborn in - Saint and Doctor Alphonsus Liguori calls this de Fide, which you know, and which Christ knew before He canonized him.

Still didn't answer the question. HHmmmm.

Well, you go along with the Baltimore Catechism and I'll stick with Trent's.

As for  St. Alphonsus,
he taught
.........................

CHAPTER II.

SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
1. With regard to its necessity, it should be known that Baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary
of all the sacraments. Without Baptism no one can enter heaven. Unless a man be born again, he cannot see
the kingdom of God.  It is also the most necessary, inasmuch as no one is capable of receiving any other sacrament if he has not previously received Baptism. Hence, Baptism is called the gate of all the sacraments.

So please reconsider your admonishment.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)