Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
Stubborn, I don't know if you are a feigning agitator, or if you are sincere.  There is evidence in my opinion right now for both.  But if you are sincere, I feel bad for you.  In normal times, a Catholic could simply write to Rome to get some sort of response.  Indeed, at any time a Catholic could do so, so long as the seat wasn't vacant, at which time, the question would be put on hold in the congregations until a later time.  Now as a Catholic I can believe that the answer I would get, I would need to submit to.  Would you, Stubborn, if you were told that St. Alphonsus was correct in Theologia Moralis in his formulation, and that the writers of the Catechisms were correct, submit?  Or would you remain, stubborn?

Reply
(12-31-2011, 07:46 PM)jordanawef Wrote:
(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.

See, that is where you blind yourself. You are so bent in favor of salvation through BOD that you read what is not written in the catechism. Read Trent's catechism and tell me that it rewards salvation via BOD and I will tell you you are wrong - because you are - no matter how many times you try to convince me it says something that it does not say.

 
(12-31-2011, 07:46 PM)jordanawef Wrote: Have it in the Catechism of Trent, or Baltimore, or Gasparri, or Pius X, it doesn't matter.

Far as I know, there are two, maybe three different teachings on BOD between the catechisms of Trent, Baltimore and CCC.


(12-31-2011, 07:46 PM)jordanawef Wrote: 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.

That St. Alphonsus contradicted himself is obvious. Why people deny it is not. He's my favorite patron saint, even before my own patron, yet he was human - why deny that he was capable of making human mistakes same as you, same as me. His mistake or mine is not the issue - get back on track and start by admitting that BOD and Baptism with water are two completely different baptisms.

That is the first and most obvious thing no BOD supporter has admitted to in +20 pages.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 07:50 PM)jordanawef Wrote: Stubborn, I don't know if you are a feigning agitator, or if you are sincere.  There is evidence in my opinion right now for both.  But if you are sincere, I feel bad for you.  In normal times, a Catholic could simply write to Rome to get some sort of response.  Indeed, at any time a Catholic could do so, so long as the seat wasn't vacant, at which time, the question would be put on hold in the congregations until a later time.  Now as a Catholic I can believe that the answer I would get, I would need to submit to.  Would you, Stubborn, if you were told that St. Alphonsus was correct in Theologia Moralis in his formulation, and that the writers of the Catechisms were correct, submit?  Or would you remain, stubborn?

I would want to know which dogma I am bound to same as now. I would instantly change my belief if we had a pope who would define or condemn it - can't hold my breath for that though. As it stands, the contradiction exists whether you deny it or not.

And FWIW, you're the stubborn one here - you can't even admit to one simple question.
Reply
You know where it is in Catechism of Trent.  You have rejected it.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 08:10 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:43 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Just remember, I am not out to be right. I am seeking the truth and am ready to be absolutely wrong and will happily admit it if/when that happens.

In the other thread, I could not even get you or any BOD supporters to admit the obvious. At least this thread my first question was answered clearly.

I freely confess my inabilities. As for this thread, just remember what you said which I bolded. I already see you starting to inch away from that commitment, i.e., slip out of the noose. I wish you well in the debate.

Don't worry - regardless of how I sound to you in print, I seek the truth and could care less about me being wrong - if you knew me in real life, you'd know that's a fact. I've been wrong a bazillion times in my life - and a bazillion times I strive to correct myself and will do the same for bazillion and one if that's the case - but I will not bend unless I am convinced. I'm not so quick to just say, "ok, there's no contradiction" - when there clearly is.

There is no contradiction in Church teaching.  Any contradiction is merely an apparent one.  A better thing to do would be, "I believe in what is in the Catechism, I believe St. Alphonsus, I believe the Popes, but I see a contradiction, and don't know how to solve it.  Nonetheless, I believe what the Church teaches."  Can you say that?  Yes, you can but will you?  Will you say that the Church teaches that the Desire for Baptism effects an extra-sacramental justification, and you don't know how to reconcile this with scripture, or do you reduce St. Alphonsus, Popes, and Theologians to all be heretics who set themself up against Christ's Sacramental system?
Reply
(12-31-2011, 08:19 PM)jordanawef Wrote: You know where it is in Catechism of Trent.  You have rejected it.

Well, here it is - please demonstrate how you get salvation via desire and via accidental death out of this - or admit it says no such thing:

.........Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness , if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 08:29 PM)jordanawef Wrote: There is no contradiction in Church teaching.  Any contradiction is merely an apparent one.

To you it is obvious that there is not even an apparent contradiction. To me, the contradiction is obvious.

(12-31-2011, 08:29 PM)jordanawef Wrote:   A better thing to do would be, "I believe in what is in the Catechism, I believe St. Alphonsus, I believe the Popes, but I see a contradiction, and don't know how to solve it.  Nonetheless, I believe what the Church teaches."  Can you say that?  Yes, you can but will you?

I don't know what to tell you - have you read the OP?


(12-31-2011, 08:29 PM)jordanawef Wrote:   Will you say that the Church teaches that the Desire for Baptism effects an extra-sacramental justification, and you don't know how to reconcile this with scripture, or do you reduce St. Alphonsus, Popes, and Theologians to all be heretics who set themself up against Christ's Sacramental system?

Why do make the claim that I have called anyone a heretic?

Some, not all members of the OM teach BOD, is that what you consider "the Church"? I do not consider some members of the OM to be the Church, I consider the pope and councils' pronouncements as well as the OM to be the Church - provided the teachings are in harmony - when it comes to BOD, they are not in harmony, they contradict.

Will you admit that BOD rejects the necessity of true actual water? No, you will not because for whatever reason, you  reject the idea that BOD rejects the necessity of water - why this is who can say?

To you, this is perfectly harmonious - to me, there is a major contradiction and I do not know who we are bound to believe, but will stick with Trent and Our Lord until someone convinces me that BOD means that there are  two completely different baptisms going on.
Reply
Will you admit that BOD rejects the necessity of true actual water?  I have already answered that question.

Please look on the other thread started by Father Cekada and answer to his points.
Reply
Getting caught up with some things after holiday travels.  I confess having time at the moment to only skim the 29 pages (I leave for Mass in an hour) of the thread but two comments (which likely have also been made by others):

First, as a point of information:
(12-29-2011, 10:10 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Now, I believe in BOD but the only person that I can ever say to have experienced it was St. Dismus.  He was never baptized and yet Christ promise him a spot in Heaven.  Unless scripture is wrong.

I don’t believe that St. Dismas (the good thief on the cross) is covered by BOD.  The Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) says:
Quote:The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

St. Dismas’ salvation occurred before Our Lord’s Resurrection and his salvation would be, I’m thinking, a matter of the process by which all the just of Old Testament times were saved.

Second, to respond to Stubborn’s query:

Some background though:  In earlier times the process of an adult being received into the Church was a bit lengthy, up to two years from what I’ve read.  These adults were catechumens, and were dismissed from the Mass at the end of the Mass of the Catechumens (some strict Orthodox still do this).  It was a far cry from the 6 – 12 catechism sessions with Father before adult baptism that was common in the 1950’s.

In the parochial school I attended in the 1950’s and 60’s (Fr. Cekada and I were born in the same year and I assume we received the same catechesis in this regard) we were taught that BOD / BOB applied (and only applied) to catechumens (those who had formally begun the process of instruction to become Catholic) who were martyred or otherwise died before they could be baptized at the Easter Vigil.  BOD/BOB DID NOT (and does not) apply to random individuals who “think they might want to get baptized someday but haven’t gotten around to starting the process yet”.

My understanding is that some follower’s of Fr. Feeney’s position postulate that in the cases to which BOD/BOB applies God mysteriously supplies water baptism (perhaps in a manner unknown to humans).  As the Church did not actually, as I understand it, condemn Fr. Feeney’s position (his excommunication by Pius XII in 1953 was because of his disobedience to the Holy See) and he was not required to recant his position when he was received back into the Church by Pope Paul VI in 1972 (an interesting case of strange bedfellows here), it would seem that one could hold this position as long as they did not deny the Church’s traditional teaching of BOD/BOB, and the rest of us are not required to believe in some form of “angelic water baptism” in these cases.

While I’m not a scholar of theological history from my limited reading I am unaware that this has been a genuine point of contention in the Church until Fr. Feeney appeared on the scene.

There have been some in the various threads on this topic who have expressed their desire that the Church dogmatically define a “strict interpretation” of EENS and scuttle BOD/BOB.  A difficulty with this, in my humble view, is that (besides the matter of random laity telling the Magisterium of the Church what it should do) is that the Church would then have to condemn EVERY approved catechism that I am aware of: The previously cited Roman Catechism http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm, The Catechism of St. Pius X,
The Baltimore Catechism
(1 – 4, take  your pick), Faith of Our Fathers (Cardinal Gibbons), Father Smith Instructs Jackson, and The Faith of Millions … The Credentials of the Catholic Religion by Fr. John A. O’Brien, to name but a few.  These are ALL pre 1950’s catechisms.  EVERY SINGLE ONE teaches BOD/BOB. 

I once asked in another thread of this topic if anyone could give an example of a pre VII approved catechism (aside from Fr. Feeney’s writings) that did not teach BOD/BOB.  Nobody did.
Reply

(12-31-2011, 08:19 PM)jordanawef Wrote: You know where it is in Catechism of Trent.  You have rejected it.

Well, here it is - please demonstrate how you get salvation via desire and via accidental death out of this - or admit it says no such thing:

.........Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness , if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)