Poll: Do you agree with the following:
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
6
0%
0 0%
21
0%
0 0%
5
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

EENS
#61
Me Wrote:Note that the other theologians didn't reiterate Cajetan's exact idea, but had different theoretical spins.  And I believe the Holy Office issued a warning against such speculation in the 50's, but I'll have to find the reference.

Well I found this reference on Catholic Answers:

Quote:Originally Posted by Canon Law Digest, Bouscaren

Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged (Holy Office, Monitum, 18 February, 1958) AAS 50-114

A warning (Monitum) of the Holy Office:

In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Accordingly this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, according to the prescription of Canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, the 18th of February, 1958.

Reply
#62
(03-29-2010, 10:31 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Quote:It was not implicitly condemned.  It was removed with other comments because it wasn't relevant to the Summa.  Pope Leo restored many of Cajetan's commentaries that were removed by Pope Pius.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Baptism:

Quote:“It is true that some Catholic writers (as Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of their parents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such as prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V, by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author's commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not agreeable to the Church’s belief.

Right, and Pope Leo put it back.  "not agreeable" is different than condemned.

Quote:Note that the other theologians didn't reiterate Cajetan's exact idea, but had different theoretical spins.  And I believe the Holy Office issued a warning against such speculation in the 50's, but I'll have to find the reference. 

Quote:You're mischaracterizing it.  We aren't willing babies to go to heaven any more than a curse wills them to go to hell.  There is no willing involved except God's Will.  Namely, His Will that as many should be saved as possible.  The question is if there is a mechanism by which an unbaptized baby would get to heaven, what would it be?  There are several theories. But the theory some make it to heaven is just that - a theory - anyhow.  Limbo, too, is a theory, but the difference is it received a much greater acceptance than any others.

Limbo is a logical conclusion derived from revelation, not merely a theory.  The mechanism's theorized above are innovative speculations. 

Both are conclusions based on a set of premises.  Neither is more logical than another.
Reply
#63
(03-30-2010, 07:35 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Me Wrote:Note that the other theologians didn't reiterate Cajetan's exact idea, but had different theoretical spins.  And I believe the Holy Office issued a warning against such speculation in the 50's, but I'll have to find the reference.

Well I found this reference on Catholic Answers:

Quote:Originally Posted by Canon Law Digest, Bouscaren

Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged (Holy Office, Monitum, 18 February, 1958) AAS 50-114

A warning (Monitum) of the Holy Office:

In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Accordingly this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, according to the prescription of Canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, the 18th of February, 1958.

That doesn't warn against speculation, it warns against not acting based on speculation.  Which is basic Church teaching and common sense.  You don't unnecessarily risk a soul based on speculation.  The same warning would be issued for baptism of desire.  You don't ignore the Sacrament of baptism just because there may be extraordinary means of receiving the necessary graces.

If the Church will warn against depending on something dogmatic such as if we can have perfect contrition on our death bed and escape damnation that way, and still tell us we should go to Confession regularly, it will obviously warn us against depending on something that is not dogmatic.

The question is has Cajetan's theory been condemned by the Church?  The answer is: no.  Pius V removed it, but did not place it on the Index (AFAIK).  Pope Leo put it back.  It appears as a theory in dogmatic theology books, not as a condemned notion.  The only consistent statement from the Church on it is: it is a theory and one should not act upon it.

Show me a condemnation, not one Pope finding it disagreeable and another putting it back in.
Reply
#64
(03-30-2010, 07:59 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-30-2010, 07:35 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Me Wrote:Note that the other theologians didn't reiterate Cajetan's exact idea, but had different theoretical spins.  And I believe the Holy Office issued a warning against such speculation in the 50's, but I'll have to find the reference.

Well I found this reference on Catholic Answers:

Quote:Originally Posted by Canon Law Digest, Bouscaren

Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged (Holy Office, Monitum, 18 February, 1958) AAS 50-114

A warning (Monitum) of the Holy Office:

In certain places the practice has grown of postponing the conferring of baptism for mistaken reasons of convenience or of a liturgical character. Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Accordingly this Supreme Sacred Congregation, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptised as soon as possible, according to the prescription of Canon 770. Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation.

Given at Rome from the Holy Office, the 18th of February, 1958.

That doesn't warn against speculation, it warns against not acting based on speculation.  Which is basic Church teaching and common sense.  You don't unnecessarily risk a soul based on speculation.  The same warning would be issued for baptism of desire.  You don't ignore the Sacrament of baptism just because there may be extraordinary means of receiving the necessary graces.

If the Church will warn against depending on something dogmatic such as if we can have perfect contrition on our death bed and escape damnation that way, and still tell us we should go to Confession regularly, it will obviously warn us against depending on something that is not dogmatic.

The question is has Cajetan's theory been condemned by the Church?  The answer is: no.   Pius V removed it, but did not place it on the Index (AFAIK).  Pope Leo put it back.  It appears as a theory in dogmatic theology books, not as a condemned notion.  The only consistent statement from the Church on it is: it is a theory and one should not act upon it.

Show me a condemnation, not one Pope finding it disagreeable and another putting it back in.

The Church as shown above calls these speculations as "devoid of solid foundation,"  so what more do you want?  Other translations simply say "unsound" and "without foundation".  It's make believe. 
Reply
#65
(03-31-2010, 10:52 AM)PeterII Wrote: The Church as shown above calls these speculations as "devoid of solid foundation,"  so what more do you want?  Other translations simply say "unsound" and "without foundation".  It's make believe. 

I told you what I want: a condemnation.  It could be about fairies and the wee people, but unless it's condemned, one can hold that opinion.
Reply
#66
(03-31-2010, 10:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-31-2010, 10:52 AM)PeterII Wrote: The Church as shown above calls these speculations as "devoid of solid foundation,"  so what more do you want?  Other translations simply say "unsound" and "without foundation".  It's make believe. 

I told you what I want: a condemnation.  It could be about fairies and the wee people, but unless it's condemned, one can hold that opinion.

It was speculated on by theologians as speculations, but is not a matter of Catholic belief, that is certain.  The Church has the authority to condemn matters pertaining to faith and morals, not the imagination.
Reply
#67
(03-31-2010, 02:13 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(03-31-2010, 10:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-31-2010, 10:52 AM)PeterII Wrote: The Church as shown above calls these speculations as "devoid of solid foundation,"  so what more do you want?  Other translations simply say "unsound" and "without foundation".  It's make believe. 

I told you what I want: a condemnation.  It could be about fairies and the wee people, but unless it's condemned, one can hold that opinion.

It was speculated on by theologians as speculations, but is not a matter of Catholic belief, that is certain.  The Church has the authority to condemn matters pertaining to faith and morals, not the imagination.

You've been working out lately haven't you?  I can tell by the extreme gymnastics you are engaging in.

No one claims it is a matter of Catholic belief.  The claim is that it is not condemned and people are free to entertain it intellectually.

I'll assume you're being coy on the parallel bars, and just point out that a theory regarding baptism and salvation is a matter pertaining to faith and morals, therefore the Church has a right to condemn it as heresy if it saw fit.  It hasn't seen fit to do so for going on 500 years now.  If I'm wrong and it has been condemned as an heresy, a proximate heresy, or even merely as a danger to the faith, show me.

I know of zero condemnations except an edit by a Pope that was put back by a later Pope who didn't share the same concerns.
Reply
#68
QuisutDeus Wrote:You've been working out lately haven't you?  I can tell by the extreme gymnastics you are engaging in.

No one claims it is a matter of Catholic belief.   The claim is that it is not condemned and people are free to entertain it intellectually.

I'll assume you're being coy on the parallel bars, and just point out that a theory regarding baptism and salvation is a matter pertaining to faith and morals, therefore the Church has a right to condemn it as heresy if it saw fit.  It hasn't seen fit to do so for going on 500 years now.  If I'm wrong and it has been condemned as an heresy, a proximate heresy, or even merely as a danger to the faith, show me.

I know of zero condemnations except an edit by a Pope that was put back by a later Pope who didn't share the same concerns.


Well, it looks to me you've been indulging in milkshakes, because you've homogenized implicit desire, limbo and vicarious baptism of desire into theories open to opinion.  But that is not so.  A few theologians have entertained the idea of vicarious baptism intellectually, but there is a big difference between the speculation of qualified theologians and their nuanced understanding, versus unqualified priests or laymen.  It's necessary for theologians to have some leeway to ponder such questions, but that does not give Catholics the right to entertain these questions freely.  The evil fruits born of this are obvious. 

Aquinas left no room for vicarious baptism of desire:
Summa Theologica Question 68, Article 3 Wrote:"I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (A[2])."

That the Pope is a reptilian humanoid from the Alpha Draconis star system is also a claim believed by some that the Church has not condemned.
Reply
#69
(04-01-2010, 12:47 AM)PeterII Wrote:
QuisutDeus Wrote:You've been working out lately haven't you?  I can tell by the extreme gymnastics you are engaging in.

No one claims it is a matter of Catholic belief.   The claim is that it is not condemned and people are free to entertain it intellectually.

I'll assume you're being coy on the parallel bars, and just point out that a theory regarding baptism and salvation is a matter pertaining to faith and morals, therefore the Church has a right to condemn it as heresy if it saw fit.  It hasn't seen fit to do so for going on 500 years now.  If I'm wrong and it has been condemned as an heresy, a proximate heresy, or even merely as a danger to the faith, show me.

I know of zero condemnations except an edit by a Pope that was put back by a later Pope who didn't share the same concerns.


Well, it looks to me you've been indulging in milkshakes, because you've homogenized implicit desire, limbo and vicarious baptism of desire into theories open to opinion.  But that is not so.  A few theologians have entertained the idea of vicarious baptism intellectually, but there is a big difference between the speculation of qualified theologians and their nuanced understanding, versus unqualified priests or laymen. 

Sure, but the limitations and allowances of the Church generally are not given to just theologians but to the faithful as a whole.  So it is with heresy.

Quote: It's necessary for theologians to have some leeway to ponder such questions, but that does not give Catholics the right to entertain these questions freely.  The evil fruits born of this are obvious. 

OK, can you show me where it says that?  That only certain theologians have leeway to ponder such questions?  You're making a lot of claims of condemnations and rules that I've never seen anywhere.

Quote:Aquinas left no room for vicarious baptism of desire:
Summa Theologica Question 68, Article 3 Wrote:"I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (A[2])."

I disagree that he left no room for it.  All that one sees from the Summa is that he didn't consider the supposition in itself.  He says many things in Q 68 et al that do leave room for it.

For example, later he says this:

Quote:Reply to Objection 3. Just as a child, when he is being baptized, believes not by himself but by others, so is he examined not by himself but through others, and these in answer confess the Church's faith in the child's stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament  of faith. And the child acquires a good  conscience in himself, not indeed as to the act, but as to the habit, by sanctifying grace.

If the child is examined as to belief through others there seems to be room that he be examined as to desire through others.

Aquinas also states that the intention of receive the Sacrament is required, and this is found in the asking:

Quote:On the contrary, According to the Church's ritual, those who are to be baptized  ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus they express their intention of receiving the sacrament.

Does the infant ask?  No, the godparents and parents ask for him.  They express the intention of receiving the Sacrament - thus they express the desire of baptism, and this is accepted by God and the Church in the case of Sacramental baptism.

Does this prove that God will accept it vicariously for baptism of desire?  No, of course not.  But it shows that there is room for it within the Summa.  All the elements for it are consistent, and the only thing that Aquinas said is they cannot show desire themselves which is a given.

Quote:That the Pope is a reptilian humanoid from the Alpha Draconis star system is also a claim believed by some that the Church has not condemned.

Well, yes it has, and I'll be happy to debate that with you, too and show that claim condemned in radice after you explain to me why something you insist something is condemned when a Pope put back into the Commentary on the Summa and it appears in a manual of dogmatic theology with the comment "are indeed possible" after it.

You can't take something you don't like or find stupid and label it "condemned" which is what it appears you are attempting to do.  Since you have offered no evidence, just conjecture on your part, you may want to back up and call it imprudent which at least doesn't require one to be a bishop.
Reply
#70

Quote:Sure, but the limitations and allowances of the Church generally are not given to just theologians but to the faithful as a whole.  So it is with heresy....OK, can you show me where it says that?  That only certain theologians have leeway to ponder such questions?  You're making a lot of claims of condemnations and rules that I've never seen anywhere.

First we must understand that one of the reasons theologians exist is to categorize or prepare propositions for the judgment of the Church. "Private theologians, either individually or collectively have no authority officially to censure  propositions, however they may, unless expressly enjoined from so doing in special cases, judge and qualify them according to existing doctrinal standards, and their initiative often goes far towards preparing the official action of the Church." CE

Now the common consensus amongst theologians about the propositions of Cajetan and a few others discussed was that they they are not part of revelation and private opinions.  But the real problems happened when some Catholics without authority began acting on these propositions and delayed the baptism of infants as described in the Monitum of the Holy Office.  As the CE says: "Condemnations issued on account of bad wording or evil consequences should at least put us on our guard against the hidden falsehood  or the noxious tendency of the proposition."

The consequences of Cajetan's et al propositions were evil abuses that had to be censured by the Church.  By their fruits you shall know them. 

Quote:Does the infant ask?  No, the godparents and parents ask for him.  They express the intention of receiving the Sacrament - thus they express the desire of baptism, and this is accepted by God and the Church in the case of Sacramental baptism.

But the asking is not a necessary part of the sacrament; so long as proper matter and form are there, the baptism is valid and grace is given ex opere operato even if the parents didn't want the baptism. 

The Reptilians will have to wait. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)