Another EENS, please be patient...
#11
(05-02-2011, 12:57 AM)Gregory I Wrote:
Quote:1071 71. Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of necessity, or of martyrdom.

This is referring to the sacrament of penance, not baptism; WHICH by implication means that those in question are already baptized, because only the baptised can receive the sacrament of penance and the remission of sins that comes from perfect charity.
-- Condemned.

Do not use bold to show your words. Use the quote system properly. Editing quotes is confusing and misrepresents what was written.

Now, when I read that citation, I thought "ah, so there is a declaration of the Baptism of Desire". I didn't know that. However, you have interpreted it differently than me. Do you have a basis for this?
Reply
#12
(05-02-2011, 04:39 AM)Rosarium Wrote: Now, when I read that citation, I thought "ah, so there is a declaration of the Baptism of Desire". I didn't know that. However, you have interpreted it differently than me. Do you have a basis for this?


Not sure why folks read "Ex Omnibus" as being "pro  Baptism of Desire" when it condemns it.........if it supported BOD, it would contradict Trent and all the other defined dogmas regarding this issue -  as briefly noted in the link below.

To my knowledge, there has never been a declaration that a contradiction exists - as such, it must be understood the way the Church has defined it and has always understood and taught it. In that way, it is in perfect harmony, free of contradiction.

From the link supplied by SouthpawLink:
(05-02-2011, 02:02 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: See also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X for an appeal to Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus in support of BoD

.........Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot.

Scroll down a little further and it says:

The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical):

True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" are metaphorical.
The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman Church,
Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation.

The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church.


Reply
#13
Stubborn,
You also are alone in your interpretation of the Council of Trent, and I think you see a contradiction where none exists.  For if there were one, then the Church would have been quite foolish to proclaim two men "Doctor of the Church" (Ss. Alphonsus and Robert) who had blatantly contradicted Trent in their writings.  Again, if you are correct, then Holy Mother Church has approved of heresy for the 390 years between 1570-1960 (and let's not forget the Roman Catechism and the 1917 Code).  She expressly approved of textbooks and professors who contradicted Trent, and who were to instruct generations upon generations of seminarians.  How can 400 years of Roman Pontiffs allow such corruption to go on in their own territory, much less the rest of the world?

"It is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions" (Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter: Denz. 1684).

There is a common and constant consent among theologians regarding baptism of desire (some go so far as to teach it as being de fide).  Therefore, we should accept it.

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/baptism.html

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=27&catname=2
Reply
#14
(05-02-2011, 11:36 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
You also are alone in your interpretation of the Council of Trent, and I think you see a contradiction where none exists.  For if there were one, then the Church would have been quite foolish to proclaim two men "Doctor of the Church" (Ss. Alphonsus and Robert) who had blatantly contradicted Trent in their writings.  Again, if you are correct, then Holy Mother Church has approved of heresy for the 390 years between 1570-1960 (and let's not forget the Roman Catechism and the 1917 Code).  She expressly approved of textbooks and professors who contradicted Trent, and who were to instruct generations upon generations of seminarians.  How can 400 years of Roman Pontiffs allow such corruption to go on in their own territory, much less the rest of the world?

"It is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions" (Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter: Denz. 1684).

Does Trent say water is necessary same as Our Lord said it was necessary - or does it not?

I'm not alone in my interpretation - from Preaching of God‟s Word, St. Alphonsus: 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.

Like I said, wherever BOD came from, it most certainly was not from Trent.
Reply
#15
Actually, BoD preceded Trent (there were a dozen Doctors who taught it as well as Popes Innocent II and III).  Trent itself mentioned no less than four times that a person could desire the sacrament (two such statements referred to Baptism).

Kindly respond to my point about Rome's acceptance of heresy for 400 years.  Not to condemn a false doctrine -- and for so long -- is to approve of it (cf. St. Augustine).
Reply
#16
(05-02-2011, 12:08 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Actually, BoD preceded Trent (there were a dozen Doctors who taught it as well as Popes Innocent II and III).  Trent itself mentioned no less than four times that a person could desire the sacrament (two such statements referred to Baptism).

Kindly respond to my point about Rome's acceptance of heresy for 400 years.  Not to condemn a false doctrine -- and for so long -- is to approve of it (cf. St. Augustine).

Trent echoed Our Lord. I won't post other councils that Trent also echoed because I think that's been posted ad nausem already.

St. Augustine, Retractions: 400 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.


St. Augustine, Retractions: 416 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?31 Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments 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.


As far as Rome's acceptance of heresy for 400 years - it may seem that way to you - even to many - - - - however, that is pretty much the way it works....................Rome sometimes let's certain issues get debated ad nausem by Her learned theologians, clergy etc - to the point that issues exhaust all arguments from themselves (kinda like here at FE lol). It might take a month, a year or 500 years - that's up to Rome.

Then Rome steps in and settles the matter for all time - just as She has done with this issue.
Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est Rome has spoken, the case is closed - also another great quote from St. Augustine
 
Personally I wish She'd jump back in and explicitly condemn or define BOD - obviously, personally, I think it will be condemned BOD because it is strictly private revelation, not part of the Deposit of faith.
Reply
#17
Stubborn,
Thank you for providing those passages from St. Augustine.  On the other hand, it's strange that you say Rome allows questions to be debated for centuries.  Certainly this is true for controverted questions (e.g., Thomism vs. Molinism), but you present BoD as being heretical (i.e. contrary to Trent's insistence on water baptism).  Rome has -- and has had -- the obligation to explicitly condemn baptism of desire dating back to 1563, if it indeed contradicts the teaching of those eminent Fathers.  That which is heretical cannot be declared to be true.

Do you admit then, at the very least, that baptism of desire is a controverted question, and so is not necessarily (nor even essentially) contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent?  If you assert that it's heresy, then Rome can do nothing other than -- and must -- condemn the long-held opinion, which has corrupted her theologians and seminarians for centuries (if this is true, however, then both Pius VI and Bl. Pius IX were in grave error: see Denz. 1501 and 1680).  How many men have gone to hell for ignoring Trent and have instead believed this heresy?  For we must hold the Faith whole and entire or not at all.

Dismissing Scholastic theology and the teaching of her theologians calls into question the authority of the Church itself, according to Bl. Pius IX.

P.S. - Pohle teaches BoD as Catholic doctrine (VIII, 243).  He cites Trent (Denz. 847) and Ex Omnibus (Denz. 1031) as supporting evidence.  See: http://www.archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft
Reply
#18
(05-02-2011, 12:08 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Kindly respond to my point about Rome's acceptance of heresy for 400 years.

Well, Rome has accepted several heresies for at least 50 years now.
Reply
#19
(05-02-2011, 01:07 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
Thank you for providing those passages from St. Augustine.  On the other hand, it's strange that you say Rome allows questions to be debated for centuries.  Certainly this is true for controverted questions (e.g., Thomism vs. Molinism), but you present BoD as being heretical (i.e. contrary to Trent's insistence on water baptism).  Rome has -- and has had -- the obligation to explicitly condemn baptism of desire dating back to 1563, if it indeed contradicts the teaching of those eminent Fathers.  That which is heretical cannot be declared to be true.


Your welcome. I can only guess why the Church has not stepped up to the plate and made at least some declaration regarding BOD. Maybe one reason  She has yet to explicitly condemn BOD is because She has already declared water as being absolutely necessary? Who knows?

At any rate, I can't imagine any decree until the crisis get's cleaned up so we're on our own.


(05-02-2011, 01:07 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Do you admit then, at the very least, that baptism of desire is a controverted question, and so is not necessarily (nor even essentially) contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent?  If you assert that it's heresy, then Rome can do nothing other than -- and must -- condemn the long-held opinion, which has corrupted her theologians and seminarians for centuries (if this is true, however, then both Pius VI and Bl. Pius IX were in grave error: see Denz. 1501 and 1680).  How many men have gone to hell for ignoring Trent and have instead believed this heresy?  For we must hold the Faith whole and entire or not at all.

Personally, I believe that BOD first and foremost contradicts the doctrine of the Divine Providence. As I mentioned before in another thread, THAT is my personal stumbling block regarding BOD. I am not sure if the whole "The guy has an accident and can't get water baptized" is an insult to God or not. That's just me - only my opinion that BOD acts as though there are accidents with God. As tho fate reigns over Providence. The reality is - it is no harder for God to provide water than it is for Him to allow BOD.........if He allows BOD then why did he specifically and literally say "water"?

To me it seems very clear that BOD not only contradicts Trent, but give us every reason to remain outside the Church - at least till the last minute. After all, if the common interpretation of BOD which has evolved over time is true, then you, me - all of us Catholics are idiots for any sacrificing if all we need to do is slip in at the last moment with some nice thoughts. Why avoid sin when we have a thing called BOD? As I mentioned before, the only difference to me between BOD and "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", is that BOD is easier and shorter to type.

The way that Trent was [mis]translated can make it go either way IMO. The thing that gets me is that if me, a dummy, can KNOW that Trent's canon(s) are no less mistranslated than todays "pro multis" / "for all" is - how is it that the whole friggen clergy doesn't know it? IOW - whoever does not believe, or believe it impossible that Trent is mistranslated, all they need do is look at "for all". Perhaps that's how the crooks knew "for all" would be accepted overall?   

Reply
#20
(05-02-2011, 02:01 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-02-2011, 12:08 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Kindly respond to my point about Rome's acceptance of heresy for 400 years.

Well, Rome has accepted several heresies for at least 50 years now.

True - seems like my whole life.  >:(
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)