Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
We are not talking about that part, we are talking about his teaching on the baptism of desire, which was together with what you just quote above.
Reply
I rescind this post.
Reply
Again, Baptism of Desire is not a Sacrament, so you won't find it in Chapter II Sacrament of Baptism.
Reply
Does that make sense to you why you would not find it that section, Chapter II "Sacrament of Baptism?"  Because it is not a Sacrament?  Do you understand that?  Baptism of desire can not be strictly called a Sacrament.

The Desire for Baptism is Not a Sacrament.  Baptism is a Sacrament.
Reply
To get back to the OP.
This is where the problem highlighted (that of contradiction) makes it impossible to sincerely hold what the Church teaches on the subject of Baptism when there are two teachings in contradiction to each other.
Far from it being a lack of humility or stubbornness on ones part not to subject oneself to Church teaching, rather it's choosing between two teachings in apparent contradiction.

On one hand we have the OM teaching a nondefined doctrine (nondefined as in no clear definition on the term Baptism of Desire) and on the other hand we have several clearly defined dogmatic statements concerning the necessity of water Baptism and, to make matters worse, anathemas attached for those who would refuse to hold them as de fide. It's a matter of fear rather than pride or stubbornness that I hold to the dogmatic definitions over the OM nondefined proposal of BoD as I believe that even the OM is subject/subservient to the dogmatic definitions universally proclaimed to every member of the Church as that which must be believed.

Even the  CCC (for all ts faults) 1257 admits that, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.."
If that be the case then how comes it that in a further paragraph it retracts this statement and says it actually does know of another means, that of BoD?
The CCC is clearly speaking of sacramental Baptism when referring to "no other means" as the very subject being discussed there is the sacrament of Baptism.

This is why I have the same problem mentioned in the OP.

Happy and peaceful new year to all on the forum.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 07:06 PM)jordanawef Wrote: Does that make sense to you why you would not find it that section, Chapter II "Sacrament of Baptism?"  Because it is not a Sacrament?  Do you understand that?  Baptism of desire can not be strictly called a Sacrament.

The Desire for Baptism is Not a Sacrament.  Baptism is a Sacrament.

Of course that makes sense to me. It also agrees with Trent and with Our Lord when the good St. says without it, no one can enter heaven.

Does that make sense to you?
Reply
Quote from: jordanawef
"Does that make sense to you why you would not find it that section, Chapter II "Sacrament of Baptism?"  Because it is not a Sacrament?  Do you understand that?  Baptism of desire can not be strictly called a Sacrament.
The Desire for Baptism is Not a Sacrament.  Baptism is a Sacrament."

That's the whole point.  BoD is not a sacrament and it has already been defined that no one can enter heaven without the sacrament of water Baptism, therefore BoD cannot get one to heaven. If it can, there's a contradiction.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 07:32 PM)columb Wrote: Quote from: jordanawef
"Does that make sense to you why you would not find it that section, Chapter II "Sacrament of Baptism?"  Because it is not a Sacrament?  Do you understand that?  Baptism of desire can not be strictly called a Sacrament.
The Desire for Baptism is Not a Sacrament.  Baptism is a Sacrament."

That's the whole point.  BoD is not a sacrament and it has already been defined that no one can enter heaven without the sacrament of water Baptism, therefore BoD cannot get one to heaven. If it can, there's a contradiction.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Reply
(12-31-2011, 07:18 PM)columb Wrote: To get back to the OP.
This is where the problem highlighted (that of contradiction) makes it impossible to sincerely hold what the Church teaches on the subject of Baptism when there are two teachings in contradiction to each other.
Far from it being a lack of humility or stubbornness on ones part not to subject oneself to Church teaching, rather it's choosing between two teachings in apparent contradiction.

On one hand we have the OM teaching a nondefined doctrine (nondefined as in no clear definition on the term Baptism of Desire) and on the other hand we have several clearly defined dogmatic statements concerning the necessity of water Baptism and, to make matters worse, anathemas attached for those who would refuse to hold them as de fide. It's a matter of fear rather than pride or stubbornness that I hold to the dogmatic definitions over the OM nondefined proposal of BoD as I believe that even the OM is subject/subservient to the dogmatic definitions universally proclaimed to every member of the Church as that which must be believed.

Even the  CCC (for all ts faults) 1257 admits that, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.."
If that be the case then how comes it that in a further paragraph it retracts this statement and says it actually does know of another means, that of BoD?
The CCC is clearly speaking of sacramental Baptism when referring to "no other means" as the very subject being discussed there is the sacrament of Baptism.

This is why I have the same problem mentioned in the OP.

Happy and peaceful new year to all on the forum.

I just saw this - thanks columb for saying it so clearly!
Reply
(12-31-2011, 07:19 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:06 PM)jordanawef Wrote: Does that make sense to you why you would not find it that section, Chapter II "Sacrament of Baptism?"  Because it is not a Sacrament?  Do you understand that?  Baptism of desire can not be strictly called a Sacrament.

The Desire for Baptism is Not a Sacrament.  Baptism is a Sacrament.

Of course that makes sense to me. It also agrees with Trent and with Our Lord when the good St. says without it, no one can enter heaven.

Does that make sense to you?

It certainly does, which is why I said it.  Samewise, Baptism of Desire and Blood is held in a quasi-moral unity with Sacramental Baptism as Saints have noted, Fathers have noted, and, Theologians, Popes, and Doctors.  How this all works out in greater detail, is irrelevant, for you, who is seemingly unwilling to submit to the basic premises of the situation.  Now, it is not up to you to clarify it, extrapolate upon it, or pronounce upon it, or reform it.  What you need to is to with docility submit to what the Church teaches concerning in it, in its entirety, and no more or no less, in the basic Catechism.  

Have it in the Catechism of Trent, or Baltimore, or Gasparri, or Pius X, it doesn't matter.

Moreover, as I have said on this forum before, Scripture is not written in mathematically precise language.  I have several books on such protestant seeming apparent contradictions.  Will you submit to those too?

You know what St. Alphonsus teaches on this stubborn as you have admitted it before.  You hold that St. Alphonsus was overlooking this, and was in contradiction to himself, and the Church in following St. Alphonsus' Formulation and direct commentary on Trent on this matter.  For this, I have no salve.  You will remain, stubborn.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)