Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(01-08-2012, 06:16 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-04-2012, 11:39 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Then the Catechism of the Council of Trent is perverting the doctrine of Divine Providence when it says "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters". It is speaking of impossibility BEFORE DEATH for adults, as it is does for babies.  If dying in grace and righteousness WITHOUT BAPTISM still sends the man to hell, than what is the point of  the Catechism talking about grace and righteousness at all?  If they don't matter as to salvation, then how is the risk for an adult less than the risk for a baby?

YOU are the ONLY one speaking about death for adults - well, you and BOD supporters overall - because death is never even implied in the Catechism of the Council of Trent's paragraph. Where does the catechism say impossibility BEFORE DEATH?

Answer - NOWHERE!

If you read what is written vs what you want it to say, you will see that the catechism echoes Trent and is in fact NOT rewarding salvation to one unbaptized - it is you who are doing that - please read what is written.

I'm trying to read what is written using human reason as best as I can.  Let me think it through again.

Look at more context in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

(The whole section on baptism starts here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thec...tism.shtml)
"Catechism of the Council of  Trent" Wrote:Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

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. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

Forget about adults for now.  Consider the case for babies.

This passage refers to the danger of delaying baptism for babies.  The danger is (1) that the baby may die without baptism, with the result (2) that the baby will not be saved.  (The reason the baby may die is because for anyone there is always a danger of death; but it is even greater with babies)

But why will babies certainly not be saved if they die before baptism?  Because "infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism".

Is the passage talking only about the chance that a baby will become sick but recover to be baptized later?  Clearly it is not; it is talking about the danger that the baby will die and not be saved.

Could the death of a baby before it is baptized be called an "unforeseen accident"?  It is certainly not intentional, and it is certainly unforeseen or else the baptism would have been done earlier (We are speaking of  true Catholics)

Have I said anything totally unreasonable yet? (Don't jump to conclusions about what I am thinking)

========================================
OK.  Let's now consider comparing the danger of delaying baptism for babies to the danger of delaying baptism for adults.

Now, the primary danger of delaying baptism for a baby is that it may not be saved.  Would the Catechism compare that danger to a lesser danger for adults? Surely it would want to consider the danger to an adult's salvation too!  But the danger to a baby's salvation comes from dying without baptism. Would the Catechism compare that to an adult being sick and being baptized later?  Losing grace because of a delayed baptism does not cause damnation if  baptism comes later.  But we are talking about the danger of damnation!   

What is considered for babies is the unforeseen accident of death preventing baptism and salvation.  Isn't it just remotely possible that the Catechism would talk about about the same possibility for adults?  If you give give up all preconceived ideas, I don't see how you can fail to acknowledge this.

Here's what the Catechism actually says about adults:
"Catechism of the Council of Trent " Wrote:[adults] Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
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.

Note the reference to "the case of infants, which we have already mentioned".  In the referenced text (earlier) death is explicitly spoken of as that which prevents a baby's baptism.  The adult case is talking about death too - this should already be clear!


The danger is that someone who dies before baptism would not be saved.  The reason that this danger exists for infants is that  "infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism".  What mitigates this danger for adults is that "their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness".    But why do we care about grace and righteousness, for someone who is not saved?!?  Is the Catechism saying that adults have it better than infants because they can have grace and righteousness just before they are damned?  Absurd.   Remember, we are not talking about "being sick and being baptized later"!  And the text certainly doesn't mention anything about later baptism. 

It is plain to me that the Catechism is saying that the Sacrament can be made impossible by the unforeseen accident of death, but that for adults the intention and determination  to receive Baptism will avail them to grace and righteousness, and hence to salvation. The Catechism is taking for granted what all Catholics should take for granted - that one who dies in the state of grace is saved. 

When I read the Catechism assuming your point of view, I have to contort its reasoning to fit.
Reply
(01-11-2012, 04:10 AM)Doce Me Wrote: When I read the Catechism assuming your point of view, I have to contort its reasoning to fit.

Only if you do not read what is written.

God commands that we are to be sacramentally baptized or we cannot enter heaven.
Trent echoes the command of Our Lord.
Trent does not reverse God's command and reward salvation to those unbaptized sacramentally.
Catechism of Trent echoes Trent.

People read catechism and read what is not written, not implied and not taught due to syllogism of grace + death = salvation.............regardless of what Trent defined, it's catechism echoes and numerous infallible declarations have proclaimed since that command of Our Lord....................you choose to believe many learned theologians who grant salvation without that sacrament based on above syllogism over and above thew teachings of infallible councils and the words of our Lord.

That is my guess as to why people read what is not written. It's similar for those who attend the both the NO and the TLM yet see only cosmetic differences between the two and believe both to be the same - only different.

Original Sin has to be sacramentally washed away or we cannot enter heaven. That is what Our Lord said and that is what Popes and councils have defined infallibly for 2000 years - so until the contradiction of BOD is defined or condemned, I'll stick with Trent:

"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema".

Reply
Dear Doce Me,

By trading proof texts over the question of baptism of desire, you've fallen into the trap of playing golf with someone who doesn't follow the rules of the game.

Feeneyite theology golf has its own rules that let them take Mulligans all over the place. Whatever it is, it ain't golf!

So let 'em play it by themselves. Time for Catholics who follow the real rules of the game to retire to the 19th hole!
Reply
Doce Me,
I want you to know that I thought your post was an outstanding analysis of the relevant passages from the Roman Catechism.  Thank you!  :mrwinky:
Reply
(01-13-2012, 03:49 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Doce Me,
I want you to know that I thought your post was an outstanding analysis of the relevant passages from the Roman Catechism.  Thank you!  :mrwinky:

SouthpawLink,

Thank you very much!

Doce Me
Reply
(01-13-2012, 12:23 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Dear Doce Me,

By trading proof texts over the question of baptism of desire, you've fallen into the trap of playing golf with someone who doesn't follow the rules of the game.

Feeneyite theology golf has its own rules that let them take Mulligans all over the place. Whatever it is, it ain't golf!

So let 'em play it by themselves. Time for Catholics who follow the real rules of the game to retire to the 19th hole!

Father, you consistently are misquoting *your* rules as "The" rules - now *your* rules have morphed into "the real rules".

I already shot a giant hole in *your* rules so instead of admitting your rules are not the Church's, you attempt to increase the value of *your* rules by calling them "the real rules"? *Your* rules need some re-work done asap.

I don't understand how a letter ("Tuas Libenter,") that was basically telling those theologians that they are not free to come up with any new doctrines, that not only are they themselves bound to the defined decrees etc, - they must also believe the constant teachings of the Church - turned into *your* rule that "we are bound to accept as de fide the common consent of theologians." . . . . . . . . . How were you able to garner that -  out of that?

That's even worse than what BOD supporters do with the canons from Trent - they see the word "Desire" and claim Trent is teaching about BOD Father. 


If this last paragraph below isn't clear enough Father, then, who knows, maybe I may bump into you at the 19th hole one day.
******
******

For we are bound to recognize in the moral unanimity of theologians not merely the voice of a body of men deeply versed in theology, though even from this point of view alone it well deserves our veneration; but, in a certain sense, the voice of the Ecclesia Docens, the Church as teacher, herself. This is what Pius IX has laid down in the Brief "Tuas Libenter," addressed to the Archbishop of Munich (1863), on the occasion of the theological Congress held in that city, in which he [Pius IX] declares that it is not enough for the learned [theologians] in their writings "to venerate and receive those things which have been defined by express decrees of Ecumenical Councils and of the Roman Pontiffs," as well as " those things which are delivered as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching (magisterium) of the Church dispersed throughout the world, and are therefore, by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians held to belong to the faith;" but that they [theologians] are likewise "bound in conscience to submit themselves both to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those points of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of Catholics, are held as theological truths and conclusions of such certainty that the opinions opposed to these points of doctrine, though they cannot be termed heretical, nevertheless deserve some other theological censure."


Reply
(01-14-2012, 07:49 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-13-2012, 12:23 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Dear Doce Me,

By trading proof texts over the question of baptism of desire, you've fallen into the trap of playing golf with someone who doesn't follow the rules of the game.

Feeneyite theology golf has its own rules that let them take Mulligans all over the place. Whatever it is, it ain't golf!

So let 'em play it by themselves. Time for Catholics who follow the real rules of the game to retire to the 19th hole!

Father, you consistently are misquoting *your* rules as "The" rules - now *your* rules have morphed into "the real rules".

I already shot a giant hole in *your* rules so instead of admitting your rules are not the Church's, you attempt to increase the value of *your* rules by calling them "the real rules"? *Your* rules need some re-work done asap.

I don't understand how a letter ("Tuas Libenter,") that was basically telling those theologians that they are not free to come up with any new doctrines, that not only are they themselves bound to the defined decrees etc, - they must also believe the constant teachings of the Church - turned into *your* rule that "we are bound to accept as de fide the common consent of theologians." . . . . . . . . . How were you able to garner that -  out of that?

That's even worse than what BOD supporters do with the canons from Trent - they see the word "Desire" and claim Trent is teaching about BOD Father.   


If this last paragraph below isn't clear enough Father, then, who knows, maybe I may bump into you at the 19th hole one day.
******
******

For we are bound to recognize in the moral unanimity of theologians not merely the voice of a body of men deeply versed in theology, though even from this point of view alone it well deserves our veneration; but, in a certain sense, the voice of the Ecclesia Docens, the Church as teacher, herself. This is what Pius IX has laid down in the Brief "Tuas Libenter," addressed to the Archbishop of Munich (1863), on the occasion of the theological Congress held in that city, in which he [Pius IX] declares that it is not enough for the learned [theologians] in their writings "to venerate and receive those things which have been defined by express decrees of Ecumenical Councils and of the Roman Pontiffs," as well as " those things which are delivered as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching (magisterium) of the Church dispersed throughout the world, and are therefore, by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians held to belong to the faith;" but that they [theologians] are likewise "bound in conscience to submit themselves both to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those points of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of Catholics, are held as theological truths and conclusions of such certainty that the opinions opposed to these points of doctrine, though they cannot be termed heretical, nevertheless deserve some other theological censure."

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Reply
(01-14-2012, 07:49 AM)Stubborn Wrote: but that they [theologians] are likewise "bound in conscience to submit themselves both to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those points of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of Catholics, are held as theological truths and conclusions of such certainty that the opinions opposed to these points of doctrine, though they cannot be termed heretical, nevertheless deserve some other theological censure."

And it is the latter part of what you quote that cooks the Feeneyite goose, because Catholic theologians attest that baptism of desire was in fact, taught with "common and constant consent." (The only opponents to the doctrine were heretics mentioned by St. Bernard of Clarivaux in the 12th century.)

Moreover, by classifying baptism of desire as either "certain," "common teaching," "Catholic doctrine," "constant," "fidei proxima," " pertaining to faith," etc. (as I demonstrate they do), the theologians thereby placed it in a category that makes opinions that oppose it "deserv[ing] of some other theological censure," just as Pius IX lays down in what you quote.

So, you're still in the trap.

And the only guys I want to see on the 19th hole are those who play by the rules of the PGA (Pius IX Golf Association) and don't take mulligans!
Reply
I can resonate with Fr. Cekada’s reply #252 :grin: I think we can all figure out that Stubborn is, well, stubborn, and God bless him for his tenacity in the faith.  Still I do at times worry about the young pre VII Catholics becoming confused on this point as to what the Church actually teaches.

In my reply #213 (page 22) I cited what are, to my knowledge, the major pre VII catechisms (indeed pre 1950’s catechisms) used in the United States:

The Baltimore.  I would venture to say that since 1885 through the early 1960’s the vast majority of young Catholics were prepared for their First Holy Communion and their Confirmation from this text.

Father Smith Instructs Jackson and The Faith of Millions … The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, both from the 1930’s, were principal catechetical texts used in instructing adult converts.  Father Smith Instructs Jackson was widely distributed by the Knights of Columbus and was frequently found on parish pamphlet racks.

My list also included The Douay Catechism of 1649 which I understand was popular in the United Kingdom and Faith of Our Fathers (Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ) by James Cardinal Gibbons (1876).

Cardinal Gibbons’ catechism is written in prose style but he sprinkles historical tidbits through out which makes it an interesting read.

They all teach BOD / BOB, every single one of them.  To suggest that the Church has never taught or believed BOD / BOB is to suggest that since 1649 (The Douay Catechism) and continuing with catechisms in the U.S. beginning in 1876 (Cardinal Gibbons) millions and millions of young and adult English speaking Catholics have been taught erroneous doctrine, if not outright heresy and the Church never lifted a finger.  These catechisms all carried (and carry to this day) official ecclesiastical approbation.

Now I grant that, even way before VII, even going clear back to John Carroll, the first Bishop of Baltimore (1789 – 1815) the U.S. has always been considered suspect by some elements in the Church.  Therefore one might look at the The Douay Catechism of 1649
Quote:Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ. ,
[/b]
Than we have the Catechism of Saint Pius X
Quote:16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.


So, there is this dilemma.  While I consider it important to continue to educate myself in the faith I don’t consider it my place, not having formal training in theology, to wander through the decrees of Trent and the writings of various Church Fathers and Doctors to try and decipher what the Church teaches.  That is why She issues catechisms with ecclesiastical approbation (and at times removes that approbation) and the catechisms teach BOD / BOB as beliefs of the Church, plain and simple.

Unless one is going to accuse Saint Pius X of, at best, being an incompetent imbecile in regards to teaching the faith, or, at worst, promoting heresy, I think what the Church believes in this regard is pretty clear.

(01-14-2012, 07:49 AM)Stubborn Wrote: This is what Pius IX has laid down in the Brief "Tuas Libenter," addressed to the Archbishop of Munich (1863), on the occasion of the theological Congress held in that city, in which he [Pius IX] declares that it is not enough for the learned [theologians] in their writings "to venerate and receive those things which have been defined by express decrees of Ecumenical Councils and of the Roman Pontiffs," as well as " those things which are delivered as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching (magisterium) of the Church dispersed throughout the world, and are therefore, by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians held to belong to the faith;" but that they [theologians] are likewise "bound in conscience to submit themselves both to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those points of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of Catholics, are held as theological truths and conclusions of such certainty that the opinions opposed to these points of doctrine, though they cannot be termed heretical, nevertheless deserve some other theological censure."

Interestingly while theologian are "bound in conscience to submit themselves … to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations …” Father Feeney refused to even to meet with the Holy Office, which is why he was excommunicated in 1953 (Pope Pius XII).  It is true that when he was reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church in 1972 (Pope Paul VI) he was not required to retract or recant his interpretation of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus".

It is also true that the Church has never declared Saint Pius X’s teaching on Baptism (nor that of any of the other catechisms cited) to be in error.

I’m not really smart enough to always understand this stuff but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Saint Pius X or Father Feeney?.  I believe the former is the safer path for a Catholic.
Reply
(01-14-2012, 06:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 07:49 AM)Stubborn Wrote: but that they [theologians] are likewise "bound in conscience to submit themselves both to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those points of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of Catholics, are held as theological truths and conclusions of such certainty that the opinions opposed to these points of doctrine, though they cannot be termed heretical, nevertheless deserve some other theological censure."

And it is the latter part of what you quote that cooks the Feeneyite goose, because Catholic theologians attest that baptism of desire was in fact, taught with "common and constant consent." (The only opponents to the doctrine were heretics mentioned by St. Bernard of Clarivaux in the 12th century.)

Moreover, by classifying baptism of desire as either "certain," "common teaching," "Catholic doctrine," "constant," "fidei proxima," " pertaining to faith," etc. (as I demonstrate they do), the theologians thereby placed it in a category that makes opinions that oppose it "deserv[ing] of some other theological censure," just as Pius IX lays down in what you quote.

So, you're still in the trap.

According to your own rules, what trap is it that I am in? The Catechism of Trent says I am correct - why do you claim I am in a trap?

Even the Catechism of Trent teaches........ 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...........This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;' and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.

So you see, not only has Sacramental Baptism been defined infallibly, it also enjoys the universal, constant and common consent of the whole Church - If that is the trap I'm in, then I'm in good company wouldn't you agree?

*You* Father, can claim BOD is whatever you want to claim it is, but unlike Sacramental Baptism, no one is bound to a belief in salvation via BOD because it is not a constant teaching.......perhaps according to your own principles, BOD may or may not be termed heretical, nevertheless, it deserve some other theological censure - according to your principles.

You have not even attempted to answer my query in the OP, you create two other threads that helps add to the confusion, your "principles" are *your principles* - they are not de fide, you've accomplished knocking Fr. Feeney - probably believe him to be a heretic because he taught the only true universal, constant and common teaching on Baptism and you continue to avoid facing the fact that your *rules* need to be revised or redone all together as I've  pointed out just a few of the most obvious errors in your principles.

According to your principles, all Catholics would always be bound to follow what the majority of “Catholic” theologians say, no matter how heretical it is - why don't you admit this instead of inserting your own proviso?


(01-14-2012, 06:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: And the only guys I want to see on the 19th hole are those who play by the rules of the PGA (Pius IX Golf Association) and don't take mulligans!

Yes, you're right. Until you revise your rules to reflect the truth, it's probably best to drink by yourself Father - or with other golfers.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)