Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(12-31-2011, 01:37 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 12:33 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:40 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
I would like to go back to your admittance that BoD can avail one of sanctifying grace and justification.  The Church teaches that sanctifying grace "makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of Heaven" (Ott, FCD, p. 258.).  Both Ott and Tanquerey (BSTD, vol. II, p. 124) denote this doctrine as being de fide.

Do you deny that an unbaptized man, but who nevertheless desires it with perfect charity and who is thus justified and in sanctifying grace, has a claim to the inheritance of Heaven?

I am saying that Trent never confirms salvation to one who is unbaptized. PLEASE show me where I am wrong.


(12-31-2011, 07:40 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: If so, then you should be consistent and deny that BoD can make a man just.  But in doing that, you'll necessarily contradict Pope St. Pius V, who taught that catechumens and mortal sinners could have perfect charity, be just, have the remission of sins and not be guilty of eternal damnation.

I implore you to pay special attention to error #3: http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/...eyites.htm

The section on Thomistic Theology is also quite important.

That BOD *can* make a man Just is not in question - never was because Trent infallibly declares that to be true.  The thing you are not admitting is that per Trent or any other Council, salvation is not rewarded via BOD - why can't BOD supporters admit that when it is only obvious?

Can you not admit that were Trent to reward one who is unbaptized salvation that they would then contradict the words of Our Lord? Even Our Lord does not say one who is unbaptized goes to hell - only that unless they are baptized, that "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".

For the life of me I can hardly comprehend how folks continue to defend what TRENT DID NOT SAY.

I fail to understand how the magisterial acts of Trent are the only ones that matter.  Just because it didn't define or teach more explicitly about BoD does not prevent later Pontiffs or councils from doing so.  We ought not to read Trent in a vacuum, which is what you appear to do.  You disregard the teaching of Popes St. Pius V and Bl. Pius IX in favor of your own private interpretation of Trent, which is contrary to a nearly unanimous consent of theologians, both before and after that council.  How is it that you and you alone know better than centuries' worth of Catholic theological experts (whose works were approved by Rome and which taught countless seminarians), who taught in Pontifical universities?  Let's not forget the sainted Pontiffs and Doctors you contradict.

I never said Trent was the only one that mattered - feel free to post anything from any Council that contradicts Trent in support of BOD.
I am saying that Trent never teaches anything whatsoever about BOD - not that it didn't teach it more explicitly.

Trent teaches about Baptism, it teaches of the necessity of water, it's main ingredient. This teaching agrees with Scripture.

You BOD supporters keep siting OM teaching which contradicts infallible teaching - which one is to be believed?

I've already pointed out where the catechism as well as the council NEVER rewards salvation to anyone unbaptized - never implies salvation to one who is unbaptized - so who is doing the misinterpreting here - it is you, the ones who claim one can be saved without the Sacrament of baptism.

No one has shown me where I am wrong - all you all keep saying is NOT what the Councils teach, which contradict Trent, then you say I am misinterpreting the teachings - - - do any of you comprehend what you read?

How about answering what I asked already? . . . . . . . .

(12-31-2011, 05:32 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 10:56 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: To answer your question more directly, the sacraments of Baptism and Penance can be desired:

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them..." (Sess. VII, can. iv: Denz. 847).  See also Denz. 796 and 898.

You said above: "the sacraments of Baptism and Penance can be desired"........... Read what the canon says *first*, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous"......

Does what you just say agree with Trent - or did you just say the Sacrament is superfluous?

Again, Trent is defining the Sacraments, *not* the desire for them.



(12-31-2011, 01:37 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith" -- Condemned (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, 22).

This aptly describes your attitude towards the teaching of the Magisterium.

Finally, there are quite a few verses where our Lord promises salvation to those who love Him (cf. Matt. X; John XIV).  Scriptorium has already discussed absolute and relative necessity, but it does not appear that you have addressed that long-held distinction used by Catholic theologians.

I agree with Pius IX - he does not mention what we are supposed to do when Catholic teachers and writers teach contrary to defined dogma.

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED ABOVE PLEASE.

Does what you just say agree with Trent - or did you just say the Sacrament is superfluous?
Reply
(12-31-2011, 02:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Loopholes in the sense that "water" in John 3:5 has to be explained away as a relative necessity. Not that such principle is in itself foreign to the interpration of Scripture, of course. Now, I'm not saying that BoD invariably leads to those distressing opinions about Jews and Muslims being saved in their religions, sometimes without even knowing it, but the fact remains that such opinions were common even before the Council and that all men who held them, also (and naturally) believed in BoD.

I always remember St. Thomas conjecturing something along the lines of God sending an angel to preach and baptise one of his elect that is lost somewhere in the jungle before missionaries could arrive at the spot. That seems to be the most correct interpretation of extraordinary circumstances: God providing all that is necessary to the elect, including baptism.

Vetus,
Yes, as it was noted earlier in the thread, receiving Holy Communion is a relative, not absolute, necessity of salvation.  And I need not point out that just because all who held a particular error (i.e. the non-necessity of divine faith) also held baptism of desire does not mean that all who hold baptism of desire believe in the aforesaid error.  I do not deny that St. Thomas' conjecture could be true and that's how apparently unbaptized men are saved.

Stubborn,
The Sacrament of Baptism is not superfluous, nor have I implied that it is.  You continually assert that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium contradicts Trent, but you have yet to prove that, aside from your own -- and supported by no theologian (nor Pontiff) of note -- interpretation of Trent's canons.  It's you "contra mundum."  A contradiction that is so clear to you is no such contradiction to ages of highly-educated priests, among whose ranks include saints, Pontiffs and Doctors.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 03:10 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 02:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Loopholes in the sense that "water" in John 3:5 has to be explained away as a relative necessity. Not that such principle is in itself foreign to the interpration of Scripture, of course. Now, I'm not saying that BoD invariably leads to those distressing opinions about Jews and Muslims being saved in their religions, sometimes without even knowing it, but the fact remains that such opinions were common even before the Council and that all men who held them, also (and naturally) believed in BoD.

I always remember St. Thomas conjecturing something along the lines of God sending an angel to preach and baptise one of his elect that is lost somewhere in the jungle before missionaries could arrive at the spot. That seems to be the most correct interpretation of extraordinary circumstances: God providing all that is necessary to the elect, including baptism.

Vetus,
Yes, as it was noted earlier in the thread, receiving Holy Communion is a relative, not absolute, necessity of salvation.  And I need not point out that just because all who held a particular error (i.e. the non-necessity of divine faith) also held baptism of desire does not mean that all who hold baptism of desire believe in the aforesaid error.  I do not deny that St. Thomas' conjecture could be true and that's how apparently unbaptized men are saved.

The point being that they died baptised rather than unbaptised.

No unbaptised man can enter the kingdom of heaven, as per John 3:5. Even BoD concedes to this because BoD is nothing but the application of the sacrament of baptism by extraordinary means.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 03:10 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
The Sacrament of Baptism is not superfluous, nor have I implied that it is.  You continually assert that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium contradicts Trent, but you have yet to prove that, aside from your own -- and supported by no theologian (nor Pontiff) of note -- interpretation of Trent's canons.  It's you "contra mundum."  A contradiction that is so clear to you is no such contradiction to ages of highly-educated priests, among whose ranks include saints, Pontiffs and Doctors.

Prove it?

Trent declares water, true water - "true and natural water" is necessary. This we absolutely are bound to believe and even die for if need be. That water is defined as a necessity there can be no argument. If there is then I guess I don't know what else to say - other than you're in denial.

Catechisms and some members of the OM state water is not a necessity - how can you possibly say the catechisms and OM do not contradict Trent? How? What is it are you thinking? It simply cannot get any more obvious.

Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 02:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I always remember St. Thomas conjecturing something along the lines of God sending an angel to preach and baptise one of his elect that is lost somewhere in the jungle before missionaries could arrive at the spot. That seems to be the most correct interpretation of extraordinary circumstances: God providing all that is necessary to the elect, including baptism.

Yes. One of the things that is very irritating in this particular debate is this idea that "accidents" can prevent the elect from from being baptized. There are no "accidents" with God. He isn't sitting there thinking "My goodness, I wanted that man to be baptized. Too bad he got hit by a car first..." The idea is ludicrous.

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.
Reply
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:
Reply
(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.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 03:40 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 02:27 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I always remember St. Thomas conjecturing something along the lines of God sending an angel to preach and baptise one of his elect that is lost somewhere in the jungle before missionaries could arrive at the spot. That seems to be the most correct interpretation of extraordinary circumstances: God providing all that is necessary to the elect, including baptism.

Yes. One of the things that is very irritating in this particular debate is this idea that "accidents" can prevent the elect from from being baptized. There are no "accidents" with God. He isn't sitting there thinking "My goodness, I wanted that man to be baptized. Too bad he got hit by a car first..." The idea is ludicrous.

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.

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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)