Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
#51
(12-29-2011, 06:12 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(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.

Who said it isn't?  But as the Catechism of Trent itself affirms, BoD is an open possibility, and even reality.  And the Roman Catechism says the the dispensation of Baptism began with the Lord's Baptism, not the Ascension.
Reply
#52
(12-29-2011, 06:31 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(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.

I've read it. Trent says what it says even if no one wants to believe it - it is you who have explaining to do - or is it Trent who owes obedience to St. Thomas? If not, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how St. Thomas does not contradict Trent.

Reply
#53
(12-29-2011, 06:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I've read it. Trent says what it says even if no one wants to believe it - it is you who have explaining to do - or is it Trent who owes obedience to St. Thomas? If not, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how St. Thomas does not contradict Trent.

The Fathers of Trent taught BoD in the style of St. Thomas, in the Catechism which they promulgated.  This is why context is important rather than proof-texting, as you are trying to do.  I put more stock in St. Robert Bellarmine's basic reading comprehension than in yours.  Trent simply isn't saying what you are trying to make it say, no matter how clear you think it might be.
Reply
#54
(12-29-2011, 06:32 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Who said it isn't?  But as the Catechism of Trent itself affirms, BoD is an open possibility, and even reality.  And the Roman Catechism says the the dispensation of Baptism began with the Lord's Baptism, not the Ascension.

The Catechism of Trent does not reward salvation to one who is unbaptized for to do so would clearly be contradictory to infallible teachings and the very words of Our Lord.

Whether Baptism itself began before the Ascension or the Resurrection is irrelevant - either way it was the Sacrament, not the desire for it, which was made obligatory.
Reply
#55
(12-29-2011, 06:44 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 06:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I've read it. Trent says what it says even if no one wants to believe it - it is you who have explaining to do - or is it Trent who owes obedience to St. Thomas? If not, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how St. Thomas does not contradict Trent.

The Fathers of Trent taught BoD in the style of St. Thomas, in the Catechism which they promulgated.  This is why context is important rather than proof-texting, as you are trying to do.  I put more stock in St. Robert Bellarmine's basic reading comprehension than in yours.  Trent simply isn't saying what you are trying to make it say, no matter how clear you think it might be.

You can make all the unsubstantiated claims you want, but what you have not done is show how BOD does not contradict Trent.
Reply
#56
Here, try some Ott on for size:

4. The Necessity of Baptism

1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, Since the promulgation of the
Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.)

The Council of Trent declared against the Reformers, whose idea of
justification led them to deny it, the necessity of Baptism for salvation:
Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad
salutem, A.S. D 861 Cf. D 791. As to the moment of the beginning of the
baptismal obligation, the Council of Trent declared that after the
promulgation of the Gospel B (post Evangelium promulgatum) there could be
no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same. D 796. The
necessity of Baptism for salvation is, according to John 3, 5 and Mk. 16,
16, a necessity of means (necessitas medii), and, according to Mt. 28, 19,
also a necessity or precept (necessitas praecepti). The necessity of means
does not derive from the | intrinsic nature of the Sacrament itself, but
from the designation of Baptism as an indispensable means of salvation by
a positive ordinance of God. In J special circumstances the actual use of
the prescribed means can be dispensed with (hypothetical necessity).

Tradition, in view of John 3, 5, strongly stresses the necessity of
Baptism for salvation. Tertullian, invoking these words, observes: " It is
determined by law that nobody can be saved without baptism " (De bapt. 12,
I).  Cf.  Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX 16.

2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism

In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire
or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)


a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of
desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum
baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on
charity).

The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not
possible " without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the
same."

According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying
power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved
much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and
I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This ,
day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In
the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism,
St.  Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed?
Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has
absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: " I find
that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is
lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem
conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not
permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29).
In the period of early Scholasticism St. !  Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77
c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa
Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against
Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.

Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace,
which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments
for sin.  Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted
according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal
character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.


b) Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis)

Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an umbaptised person, that is, the
patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature
leads to death, by reason of one's confession of the Christian faith, or
one's practice of Christian virtue.

Jesus Himself attests the justifying power of martyrdom. Mt. to, 32: "
Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess
him before my Father who is in Heaven." Mt. 10 39 (16, 25): " He that
findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me
shall find it." John 11 12, 25: " He that hateth his life in this world
keepeth it unto life eternal."

From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for
Baptism.
Tertullian calls it "blood Baptism" (lavacrum sanguinis) and
ascribes to it the effect of "taking the place of the baptismal bath if it
was not received, and restoring that which was lost" (De bapt. I6).
According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive "
the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism" (Ep. 73, 22). Cf. Augustine,
De civ. Dei XIII 7.

As, according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf.
Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism,
blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of
desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also
quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace of justification, and when
proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and
temporal punishments. St.  Augustine says: " It is an affront to a martyr
to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers "
(Sermo 159 I.) Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character.
Cf. S. th. III 66, 11 and 12.
Reply
#57
I think Father Cekada would be sad that everyone is missing the main point of his article :( 
Reply
#58
(12-29-2011, 06:49 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 06:44 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 06:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I've read it. Trent says what it says even if no one wants to believe it - it is you who have explaining to do - or is it Trent who owes obedience to St. Thomas? If not, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how St. Thomas does not contradict Trent.

The Fathers of Trent taught BoD in the style of St. Thomas, in the Catechism which they promulgated.  This is why context is important rather than proof-texting, as you are trying to do.  I put more stock in St. Robert Bellarmine's basic reading comprehension than in yours.  Trent simply isn't saying what you are trying to make it say, no matter how clear you think it might be.

You can make all the unsubstantiated claims you want, but what you have not done is show how BOD does not contradict Trent.

How does it contradict?  Saying that there is a contradiction over and over again is not a proof, either.  St. Thomas and the other Doctors affirm precisely what the Council teaches, but also that desire can suffice for salvation.  Which the Tridentine Fathers also affirmed.
Reply
#59
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

The baptism of desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ.  After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.
The baptism of blood

The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."

The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
Reply
#60
Stubborn, I have no problem with the statements of Trent, you are the one who is having trouble reconciling it. Your strict legalistic reading will lead you down the path of rejecting one or the other, instead of accommodation (interpret it in a way that makes the most sense). You aren't addressing other examples I give you. Thou shalt not kill is "de fide" in the moral world. So why is not every act of killing sinful? Our Lord saying that you will have no life in you (sanctifying grace) if you do not eat His body and drink His blood. That's de fide. So what about children who don't receive the sacrament? What about those of us who don't drink His blood. He said literally blood, so we should take the chalice too, right? You're not addressing other circumstances in which the Church clearly mitigates sacramental and other requirements for impossibilities, and other mitigating circumstances (level of will and/or reason). Until then, you're not going to get anywhere with me.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)