Poll: Baptizing children without without their parent's permission is
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Baptizing children without without their parent's permission?
(11-17-2011, 05:51 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 05:46 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 05:43 PM)Servire Deo Wrote:
(11-17-2011, 04:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote: :LOL:

Sevire, have you had any training in Latin?  Do not look to men such as these to learn.

No, do you?

Perhaps we can get someone who is in, since you aren't accepting the opinion of that Oxford Latin scholar. There's a few people on FE who have a degree in the Classics.

Yes, I actually have studied Latin extensively for the past several years, and can sight-read it.  Aut means or, simple as that.  No sophistry can wiggle out of the basic meaning of the word.  Stop relying on fools as a source, and get some real support if you want to disagree with the Council of Trent and St. Thomas.

Homeskool doesn't count.  You obviously can't refute that Oxford Latin scholar, so you resort to calling it sophistry.

Well, I am certified for Master's degree level competency in Latin, does that satisfy you?  :LOL:
The Oxford scholar doesn't even say anything.  She just shrugs and says "I dunno, depends on context, I guess?  You decide."  The best course of action is to look to the normal meaning of the word, which is "or," and what St. Thomas, the light of the Council, teaches, which is that baptism of desire alone suffices.  Did you read the dictionary definitions we posted?  The Dimonds are clearly wrong.
“This is not easy! It is possible to make sense of it in both ways, with aut as 'or' and as 'and'.
“Aut as 'or' is more common, but here the interpretation depends on whether you think that the desire for baptism is enough on its own or whether the phrase signifies that you need the desire as well as the sacrament itself.
I'll leave it to you to decide!
Best wishes,
Carolinne White

She clearly has no opinion on the topic, as the Dimonds admit she is probably not even Catholic.  The Council Fathers were using St. Thomas as their guide; St. Thomas clearly affirms Baptism of desire.  The probable, near-certain interpretation is that they followed St. Thomas, the Common Doctor, in this matter as they did in general.  This need not mean ecumaniac "Anonymous Christian" sorta stuff.  There is a golden mean to be found between the Dimonds and Karl Rahner.  :eyeroll:
I did read the definitions.

Are you a woman, by any chance? Because only women roll their eyes that much.
(11-17-2011, 06:04 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: I did read the definitions.

Are you a woman, by any chance? Because only women roll their eyes that much.


Actually, no.  I'm just Austrian-American.   :eyeroll: :LOL:

Why not respond to the actual definitions of the words, or the teachings of St. Thomas?  Why quote some schismatic morons instead?

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)