Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
:tiphat:
Reply
(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: You ask me to, "STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;"[/i] when it is the actual "contradictions" (in the plural) that are not being addressed, never mind resolved.

[...]

If it has already been stated by a supreme Pontiff that there is but  "one God, one faith, one baptism," beyond which it is not lawful to speculate further, by what authority does one speculate  on or introduce another baptism which has the capability of overriding the necessity of the ONE Baptism which we profess in the credo?

Please pardon my interruption, but do you acknowledge the facts that the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism [1] is not a sacrament (therefore, there is still only one sacrament of baptism), [2] that it absolutely must be animated by perfect love for God in order to be efficacious, [3] that the latter automatically places the soul in the state of sanctifying grace, though there is no way for a soul to be certain if or when this has happened, [4] that all souls who die in the state of sanctifying grace are infallibly saved, and [5] that there are different types of necessity* as recognized by theologians long before Trent's canon concerning the sacrament (NOTE: meaning that the necessity of water for baptism does not apply to baptism of desire) of baptism?

These 5 facts and the logical conclusions that follow therefrom reconcile the various teachings of the Church on this matter without any contradiction.



* For example:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Necessity Wrote:Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.
Reply
(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: (Pope Pius IX, from Singulari Quadem:
“For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2),we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’[Eph. 4:5];    it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." 

and to do so against an ex cathedra pronouncement, Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent,Sess. 7, Can. 5; “If anyone says that baptism (the Sacrament) is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

How is one to hold this as de fide while simultaneously holding that the Sacrament of Baptism can in fact be optional/not necessary for some -namely; those who receive BoD-  without incurring the attached anathema?

Though this was directed to another poster if I may respond also:

First, have you read the several catechism citations that are in post #213?

The Church isn’t saying that the Sacrament of Baptism “can in fact be optional/not necessary for some..” .  The Church does teach that there are three forms of Baptism: water, of desire, of blood (the latter two being essentially the same in most respects).  The form of water is the normative form, and the form one is required to avail themselves of whenever possible.  This is held so strongly by the Church that the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) says:
Quote:Those who may administer Baptism in case of necessity[b], but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the last place; [b]and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong[b]. This office extends in case of necessity, [b]even to Jews, infidels and heretics, provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. These things were established by many decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils; and the holy Council of Trent denounces anathema against those who dare to say, that Baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism.

This same catechism, after an admonishment that The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. goes on to state:
Quote:With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.

If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church.

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages.

IF the Church held rigidly that unless one receives physical water baptism, with no other provision for when this is impossible, they can’t be saved, why would Trent teach that the baptism of adult catechumens should be delayed?  It is true that the delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, still, especially in those days, there were plenty of opportunities for one’s unplanned demise.  Are some suggesting that the compilers of this august catechism, including Saint Charles Borromeo, acted with extreme recklessness and imprudence in stating what had always been the Church’s practice, that baptism of adults is delayed until after a period of catechesis?

Part of this debate centers around the statement should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness..  There are those here who have argued “well grace and righteousness, ah okay, but they didn’t receive water baptism, so they can’t be saved.”  Hmmm, so those with grace and righteousness go to hell?  Show me where the Church teaches that.

The bottom line being it appears to me (and to the vast majority of Catholics) that Trent, through the catechism it ordered to be produced, is speaking precisely of Baptism of Desire / Baptism of Blood in the above cited passage.  That is certainly how every major English language catechism in use until the turmoil of VII seems to understand it.  To say otherwise is to, among other things, accuse Saint Pius X of heresy, because he explicitly taught BOD /BOB in his catechism (again, see the citations in post #213).
Reply
Columb,

Here I answer one question of yours, but  I think it is MORE IMPORTANT for you to answer INPEFESS and moneil's posts. I am in particular anxious to see your and Stubborn's responses to INPEFESS'  5 facts http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33669087, which are central to this issue.

(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: ...
I would much preferred you answered the first part of my post which highlighted one such possible contradiction; that being; If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" contained in John 3:5 which you say allows for unspoken exceptions, in the verse there is also linked with the word "water" the words "the spirit" conjoined with the word "and."
Therefore if "unless" is permitting unspoken exceptions concerning "water," it must also contain unspoken exceptions concerning "the spirit." No?
...

I actually did answer the first part of your post:
Doce Me Wrote:
(01-02-2012, 09:36 PM)columb Wrote: If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" that it contains unspoken exceptions, in the verse being considered there is also linked in with "water" the words "the spirit" conjoined with the word "and."
Therefore if "unless" is permitting unspoken exceptions concerning "water," it must also contain unspoken exceptions concerning "the spirit." No?

No!   Because there can be exceptions does not mean that there can be any exception you can think of!  The Holy Ghost or the Spirit  (in Sanctifying grace) is given even in baptism of desire, otherwise it would be totally meaningless. If water and the Spirit are both necessary, giving just the Spirit  - in a rare case caused by God not man - would still be an exception. (edited)

I think I messed up my quotes myself, which may explain why you didn't see this answer.  (It may also explain further problems with quoting)

I realize I haven't answered all of your most recent post.
Reply
(01-03-2012, 02:12 AM)moneil Wrote: With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.

If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church.

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages.

moneil, thanks for replying.

I will state the obvious yet again.

The catechism states perfectly (far as I can tell) the exact same de fide teaching as Trent - and the catechism (specifically the bolded red part) even goes into a bit more of an explanation as regards Trent's "Decree on the Sacraments" Canon IV as I will attempt to explain once more.

First, no where does the catechism OR TRENT say salvation will be granted - only that BOD would suffice for grace and righteousness. "Grace and righteousness" is not salvation. One needs to actually die for salvation.

Second, the catechism also makes repentance for past sins an additional requirement for an unbaptized person to be placed in the state of grace and righteousness. Not salvation. So per the catechism, one who is unbaptized must not only have the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism aka "desire", one must also repent for past sins. This is where the catechism explains more fully, yet still lacking imo, what Trent's or without the desire thereof, in canon IV means.

Third, "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters" - means what it says. Let's say that the adult breaks his leg and can't make it to his baptism till next week. He still needs to get baptized.
Let's say he is deathly ill for 6 weeks and dies before being baptized, we *can* say "he died unbaptized", we cannot say BOD saved him because we do not know that.
We *can* say that "if he desired baptism and repented etc and that God accepted this desire and repentance as being sincere enough, that he died in the state of grace and righteousness",  but we cannot say he went to heaven or hell because even Trent doesn't know or they would have declared it - no?

Both the catechism and the council are of the same mind here, you'll not find Trent rewarding salvation to one who died without the Sacrament and neither does the catechism - neither does Our Lord in John 3:3 for that matter. The "common consent" theory made that particular leap on their own.

Both Trent and the catechism stop short of rewarding heaven to one who is certainly not baptized sacramentally - feel free to show me where I am wrong. The reason they do not reward heaven to one who is not baptized sacramentally is not for us to declare, suffice to note that they simply never do that.

One thing seems sure, if Trent did reward salvation without the Sacrament, they'd be contradicting themselves in canon IV where they teach infallibly and anathematize whoever does not believe it, that The Sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation.

I am merely stating what the catechism is saying. People read it and seem to think it rewards salvation to someone who dies in a car accident on the way to Church to be baptized - it teaches nothing of the sort. That's an mis-interpretation that is widely held ie "common consent". But it says what it says even if no one believes it.

Rewarding salvation to one who has not received the Sacrament - but because he desired baptism, had an unforeseen accident on the way to Church and had perfect contrition going on --  is a leap in interpretation that you make on your own, it is not there, it is simply not there or in Trent's teachings.

Then there's the syllogisms........unbaptized justification + death = salvation

The above syllogism is the common consent of theologians. Fr. Cekada believes that common consent means BOD is an infallible teaching. Problem is, it is not the common consent of theologians that bind us, that is wrong - that is like saying if enough of us believe it and teach it, it will be true ipso facto regardless of what the pope declared to be de fide!

Rather, it seems only obvious that it is the "constant" consent of theologians, not the "common" consent of theologians to that which we are bound to believe. I already posted this error to Fr and he has not replied yet so I guess we'll see what he says about that.

As INPEFESS said, if we are bound by the common consent vs the constant consent of theologians, then we were and are bound to believe error as taught via the common consent as taught during the Arian Heresy when +99% of the Church believed the error that was being taught by 99% of the theologians - - -  and for that matter, we are bound to error now, during the NO heresy as the NO has the common consent of theologians, but it certainly does not have their constant consent. It simply is not the common consent we are bound to, it is the constant consent, ie from the time of the apostles.

FWIW, the constant consent of all catechisms and theologians remain to this day, even in the CCC  that the Sacrament of Baptism is an absolute necessity - *then* some (most?) of them go onto BOD - but it is the Sacrament that is both the common and constant consent of theologians, even among those theologians who teach in BOD.

Sorry for the long post, time constraints and all you know. Hopefully the above makes some sense. 
Reply
(01-03-2012, 01:52 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: You ask me to, "STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;"[/i] when it is the actual "contradictions" (in the plural) that are not being addressed, never mind resolved.

[...]

If it has already been stated by a supreme Pontiff that there is but  "one God, one faith, one baptism," beyond which it is not lawful to speculate further, by what authority does one speculate  on or introduce another baptism which has the capability of overriding the necessity of the ONE Baptism which we profess in the credo?

Please pardon my interruption, but do you acknowledge the facts that the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism [1] is not a sacrament (therefore, there is still only one sacrament of baptism), [2] that it absolutely must be animated by perfect love for God in order to be efficacious, [3] that the latter automatically places the soul in the state of sanctifying grace, though there is no way for a soul to be certain if or when this has happened, [4] that all souls who die in the state of sanctifying grace are infallibly saved, and [5] that there are different types of necessity* as recognized by theologians long before Trent's canon concerning the sacrament (NOTE: meaning that the necessity of water for baptism does not apply to baptism of desire) of baptism?

These 5 facts and the logical conclusions that follow therefrom reconcile the various teachings of the Church on this matter without any contradiction.



* For example:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Necessity Wrote:Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

I believe all five INPEFESS, but there is still no constant teaching of the Church that rewards salvation to one who dies without the Sacrament.

See my post previous to this one please.
Reply
(01-03-2012, 04:03 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Columb,

Here I answer one question of yours, but  I think it is MORE IMPORTANT for you to answer INPEFESS and moneil's posts. I am in particular anxious to see your and Stubborn's responses to INPEFESS'  5 facts http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33669087, which are central to this issue.

(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: ...
I would much preferred you answered the first part of my post which highlighted one such possible contradiction; that being; If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" contained in John 3:5 which you say allows for unspoken exceptions, in the verse there is also linked with the word "water" the words "the spirit" conjoined with the word "and."
Therefore if "unless" is permitting unspoken exceptions concerning "water," it must also contain unspoken exceptions concerning "the spirit." No?
...

I actually did answer the first part of your post:
Doce Me Wrote:
(01-02-2012, 09:36 PM)columb Wrote: If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" that it contains unspoken exceptions, in the verse being considered there is also linked in with "water" the words "the spirit" conjoined with the word "and."
Therefore if "unless" is permitting unspoken exceptions concerning "water," it must also contain unspoken exceptions concerning "the spirit." No?

No!   Because there can be exceptions does not mean that there can be any exception you can think of!  The Holy Ghost or the Spirit  (in Sanctifying grace) is given even in baptism of desire, otherwise it would be totally meaningless. If water and the Spirit are both necessary, giving just the Spirit  - in a rare case caused by God not man - would still be an exception. (edited)

I think I messed up my quotes myself, which may explain why you didn't see this answer.  (It may also explain further problems with quoting)

I realize I haven't answered all of your most recent post.

Thank you Doce Me.
Apologies for missing part of your post. That was an excellent reply and much appreciated. I still have this reservation concerning the separation of the water from the spirit and vice versa.
In both sacramental Baptism and BoD the spirit remains operational but in the latter case the spirit is divorced from the water. Now as it is stated that without the water and the spirit (operating in unison) a man cannot enter the kingdom of God, the contradiction remains. If a soul were in fact to enter the kingdom of heaven without the water, the words of Our Lord (and the related infallible pronouncements of His Church) are accused (at the very least) of being ambiguous.when in fact if taken as written they retain their crystal clarity. as per, "If you mean yes say yes, if you mean no say no; anything else comes from the evil one."

Reply
(01-03-2012, 05:57 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-03-2012, 01:52 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: You ask me to, "STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;"[/i] when it is the actual "contradictions" (in the plural) that are not being addressed, never mind resolved.

[...]

If it has already been stated by a supreme Pontiff that there is but  "one God, one faith, one baptism," beyond which it is not lawful to speculate further, by what authority does one speculate  on or introduce another baptism which has the capability of overriding the necessity of the ONE Baptism which we profess in the credo?

Please pardon my interruption, but do you acknowledge the facts that the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism [1] is not a sacrament (therefore, there is still only one sacrament of baptism), [2] that it absolutely must be animated by perfect love for God in order to be efficacious, [3] that the latter automatically places the soul in the state of sanctifying grace, though there is no way for a soul to be certain if or when this has happened, [4] that all souls who die in the state of sanctifying grace are infallibly saved, and [5] that there are different types of necessity* as recognized by theologians long before Trent's canon concerning the sacrament (NOTE: meaning that the necessity of water for baptism does not apply to baptism of desire) of baptism?

These 5 facts and the logical conclusions that follow therefrom reconcile the various teachings of the Church on this matter without any contradiction.



* For example:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Necessity Wrote:Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

I believe all five INPEFESS, but there is still no constant teaching of the Church that rewards salvation to one who dies without the Sacrament.

See my post previous to this one please.

If you accept 3 and 4, then how does that work in the absence of the sacrament of baptism? There are no conditions for 3 and 4. The Church doesn't say: 'One who makes a perfect act of love for God is justified . . . only if he has first been baptized.' It says that anyone who makes a perfect act of love for God is justified. The Church goes on to teach that all who die in this state of justification are infallibly saved. It doesn't qualify it by saying: 'Only if they have first received the sacrament of baptism.' It says [1] that a person who makes a perfect act of love for God is justified, and [2] that all who die in the state of justification are infallibly saved.

This doesn't make baptism of water not necessary for salvation. It is necessary insofar as one has the opportunity to receive it. One may not opt out of it; nor can one choose to substitute it with something else. In this way, the theologians, including the Angelic Doctor himself, teach that it is a relative necessity but is simply said to be "necessary" by the canon of Trent. Elsewhere, Trent declared "or the desire thereof" concerning the necessity of the sacrament of baptism. This means that, unless we want to claim that their were internal contradictions within the Council of Trent itself, the canon must have been talking about a relative necessity. This is the interpretation of the common consent of the theologians charged with teaching on the Church's behalf.

The only way to resolve the problem presented in paragraph 1 is to make an exception to points 3 and 4, which means that in rigorously conforming to one dogma under a pretense of refusing to acknowledge what is mistakenly understood to be an exception to the teaching, those who deny the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism must make exceptions to the doctrine of justification. As I have pointed out, this was the problem with Fr. Feeney because in the name of refusing to compromise one teaching he simply compromised another. In his own book, the conclusion of this forced him to literally invent a third place in addition to Heaven and Hell where souls justified by baptism of desire yet devoid of the sacrament of baptism go. This nonsense is the reason that Catholics are obliged to conform to the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium and not try to blaze their own theological trails through the underbrush.
Reply
INPEFESS and moneil, thank you both for your replies. I will respond as soon as I get the chance.

I've been a lurker on FE for a while and have -til now- resisted the temptation to join in due to my lack of free time. The Christmas break provided me the opportunity to get involved at least for now.

INPEFESS, I've read much of what you've written on other threads and on various topics on FE and I've found myself in agreement with you on practically every sentence you've written. The fact that I don't share the same conviction as your good self concerning BoD, has given me pause to think more deeply on this subject.
I'd like to believe I'm approaching with an open mind as I'm acutely aware of how easily I have been deceived in the past when I was  (IMO) a well-intentioned front line NOer. I've since learnt that faith and reason are not opposed and that faith supercedes reason without contradicting it. Thus, the current dilemma.
While not lacking the will to submitt to any Church doctrine, on this matter the intellect refuses to follow.
As St Francis de Sales would put it, "Simplicity demands that the exterior be in conformity with the interior," meaning that, what is outwardly stated should be in conformity with what's inwardly believed. Currently I'm not convinced that BoD has risen to the status of a doctrine of the faith even though it enjoys much approval. The fact that Fr. Cekada, the SSPX, the FSSP, the CMRI, and practically any other order I could care to name all hold the same position on BoD causes me great concern.
Stubborn, Jenn and I are either modern-day St. Athanasius' or deceived heretics haha..
I would bet on the latter regarding myself.   Anyway, will get back with a response soon.

Pax.

Reply
(01-03-2012, 08:20 AM)columb Wrote: INPEFESS and moneil, thank you both for your replies. I will respond as soon as I get the chance.

I've been a lurker on FE for a while and have -til now- resisted the temptation to join in due to my lack of free time. The Christmas break provided me the opportunity to get involved at least for now.

INPEFESS, I've read much of what you've written on other threads and on various topics on FE and I've found myself in agreement with you on practically every sentence you've written. The fact that I don't share the same conviction as your good self concerning BoD, has given me pause to think more deeply on this subject.
I'd like to believe I'm approaching with an open mind as I'm acutely aware of how easily I have been deceived in the past when I was  (IMO) a well-intentioned front line NOer. I've since learnt that faith and reason are not opposed and that faith supercedes reason without contradicting it. Thus, the current dilemma.
While not lacking the will to submitt to any Church doctrine, on this matter the intellect refuses to follow.
As St Francis de Sales would put it, "Simplicity demands that the exterior be in conformity with the interior," meaning that, what is outwardly stated should be in conformity with what's inwardly believed. Currently I'm not convinced that BoD has risen to the status of a doctrine of the faith even though it enjoys much approval. The fact that Fr. Cekada, the SSPX, the FSSP, the CMRI, and practically any other order I could care to name all hold the same position on BoD causes me great concern.
Stubborn, Jenn and I are either modern-day St. Athanasius' or deceived heretics haha..
I would bet on the latter regarding myself.   Anyway, will get back with a response soon.

Pax.

Pax Christi tecum.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)