Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
#41
(12-29-2011, 05:22 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 05:11 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Missing mass is is a sin unless it cannot be helped. There is no such proviso with regards to salvation - IF YOU USE infallibly defined dogma. Per dogma infallibly defined, the teachings are quite clear that the sacrament is necessary for salvation.
IF YOU USE teachings of the OM then there is the proviso of BOD.

The two teachings contradict - it is that simple. If not, please show some definitive teaching that agrees with BOD.

Yes, you are being legalist. It's like saying all killing is wrong because "Thou shalt not kill". No nuance, no context. What about a car accident. Infallibly defined doctrine is not meant for us to just believe that, but to resolve doctrinal debates and/or confirm an already very strong consensus. It's like saying only believe what's in the Bible because that is "God-breathed".

That's completely not true. You are not reading what was declared, if you are reading what is de fide via the canon safeguarded from error by the Holy Ghost,  then you could not possibly agree that water is not an absolute necessity unless you do not believe it. 

Did Trent or did not Trent declare infallibly that real physical water is necessary for baptism in no uncertain words? - yes or no? (this is not a trick question Scriptorium)
Reply
#42
(12-29-2011, 05:31 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 05:11 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 05:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 04:41 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Yes, just one..........from Trent:
If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.


Does Trent declare water is a necessity or does it only not mean it?
Council of Trent declares: "The Council further teaches that, though contrition may sometimes be made perfect by charity and may reconcile men to God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire for the sacrament which it includes."

No disagreement from me here.

Dude, that second canon from Trent is a definition of Baptism of Desire, straight up.  There is no contradiction, if there was then every pre-Vatican II theologian listed in the OP link was a moron.  Which is ridiculous.  There is no conflict here.

Which second canon are you talking about?
Reply
#43
(12-29-2011, 05:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 05:22 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 05:11 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Missing mass is is a sin unless it cannot be helped. There is no such proviso with regards to salvation - IF YOU USE infallibly defined dogma. Per dogma infallibly defined, the teachings are quite clear that the sacrament is necessary for salvation.
IF YOU USE teachings of the OM then there is the proviso of BOD.

The two teachings contradict - it is that simple. If not, please show some definitive teaching that agrees with BOD.

Yes, you are being legalist. It's like saying all killing is wrong because "Thou shalt not kill". No nuance, no context. What about a car accident. Infallibly defined doctrine is not meant for us to just believe that, but to resolve doctrinal debates and/or confirm an already very strong consensus. It's like saying only believe what's in the Bible because that is "God-breathed".

That's completely not true. You are not reading what was declared, if you are reading what is de fide via the canon safeguarded from error by the Holy Ghost,  then you could not possibly agree that water is not an absolute necessity unless you do not believe it. 

Did Trent or did not Trent declare infallibly that real physical water is necessary for baptism in no uncertain words? - yes or no? (this is not a trick question Scriptorium)

"The Council further teaches that, though contrition may sometimes be made perfect by charity and may reconcile men to God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire for the sacrament which it includes."

That is baptism of desire.  It is De Fide.  Straight-forward and simple.  The Modernists misuse it, but that does not justify denying De Fide teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Reply
#44
Really, anything that puts a Catholic on the wrong side of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, St. Alphonsus Liguori, etc., is dubious.  To deny BoD is loopy and contrary to the Faith, and as the good Father in the OP pointed out, arguably a mortal sin.  Certainly it smacks more of Protestantism than of Catholicism, since it requires us to believe a fringe minority opinion to be superior to the Fathers and Scholastics and Counter-Reformers all in one go.
Reply
#45
(12-29-2011, 05:35 PM)Parmandur Wrote: "The Council further teaches that, though contrition may sometimes be made perfect by charity and may reconcile men to God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire for the sacrament which it includes."

That is baptism of desire.  It is De Fide.  Straight-forward and simple.  The Modernists misuse it, but that does not justify denying De Fide teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Well, if you read this canon in the proper context, it is speaking about the Sacrament of Penance, not baptism-  (the person is already baptized.)

On the Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction Scroll down to Ch. IV




Reply
#46
(12-29-2011, 05:40 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Really, anything that puts a Catholic on the wrong side of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, St. Alphonsus Liguori, etc., is dubious.  To deny BoD is loopy and contrary to the Faith, and as the good Father in the OP pointed out, arguably a mortal sin.  Certainly it smacks more of Protestantism than of Catholicism, since it requires us to believe a fringe minority opinion to be superior to the Fathers and Scholastics and Counter-Reformers all in one go.

Then it should require little effort to show that the certainly infallible declarations agree with BOD -  as it is, the only ones I have ever seen all contradict BOD. 

Please provide either a version of BOD that does not contradict the below canon or another canon that agrees with any version of BOD.

Trent: If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

I honestly do not think I am asking for the impossible here - or am I?
Reply
#47
Sure, here ya go:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Question 68, Article 2 Wrote:Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? [his answer is "yes, they can" in the case of BoD or BoB]

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
Reply
#48
(12-29-2011, 05:40 PM)Parmandur Wrote:  To deny BoD is loopy and contrary to the Faith, and as the good Father in the OP pointed out, arguably a mortal sin. 

I had no idea that The Council of Trent was making infallible statements contrary to the Faith....

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema."

There is no other way to read this. It says "true and natural water". It says no "twisting into some metaphor". To deny that this means exactly what it says it means is indeed twisting it into a metaphor. The mental gymnastics required to reconcile this with BOD takes more energy than I've got.

Now if the day ever comes where someone can show me where BOD was formally defined, I will reconsider my position. Until then, as a Catholic I am required to believe that true and natural water is necessary for Baptism.



Reply
#49
(12-29-2011, 06:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, here ya go:


Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? [his answer is "yes, they can" in the case of BoD or BoB]

This contradicts Trent.
Reply
#50
(12-29-2011, 06:23 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 06:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, here ya go:


Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? [his answer is "yes, they can" in the case of BoD or BoB]

This contradicts Trent.

Really?  How so?  Did you read St. Thomas argument all the way through?  Can you explain what is wrong with it, or why the Doctors of the Church are wrong to consider it De Fide?  The burden of proof is on the one who dissents from the Tradition of the Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)