Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
#61
(12-29-2011, 06:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.)

Not sure you even know what it is that you copied and pasted - but here goes.........
This agrees with Trent.


(12-29-2011, 06:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.

This agrees with Trent.

(12-29-2011, 06:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.)

This contradicts Trent.

(12-29-2011, 06:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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).

That BOD is associated with perfect contrition agrees with Trent.


(12-29-2011, 06:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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."

This agrees with Trent.


(12-29-2011, 06:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.

This contradicts Trent.



(12-29-2011, 06:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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."

This contradicts Trent.

(12-29-2011, 06:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote: 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.

This contradicts Trent and who knows why they even mention the Holy Innocents in regards to BOB.
Reply
#62
(12-29-2011, 06:51 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: I think Father Cekada would be sad that everyone is missing the main point of his article :( 

I addressed that in the OP.
Reply
#63
(12-29-2011, 06:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(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.

How does it contradict?

Did you not read the canon?................. 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.

St. Thomas says water is not a necessity - how do say he does not contradict Trent?
Reply
#64
(12-29-2011, 06:56 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: 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, your not going to get anywhere with me.

What no one seems to be getting here is Trent declared water as being a necessity for baptism. We are bound to that under pain of anathema.

Any baptism that does not involve actual water contradicts Trent. Why is that so impossible?
Reply
#65
(12-29-2011, 07:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote: What no one seems to be getting here is Trent declared water as being a necessity for baptism. We are bound to that under pain of anathema.

Any baptism that does not involve actual water contradicts Trent. Why is that so impossible?

Are you going to avoid my concerns addressed to you again?
Reply
#66
Okay, clearly you have little idea about what St. Thomas taught, so here, have some more:

[quote='St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 66, Article 3']
Article 3. Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism. For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the Baptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism (Matthew 3:11): "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."

Objection 2. Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism. But many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above (Question 62, Article 5). But not only water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems that Baptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be more in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (Apocalypse 1:5): "(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood."

Objection 4. Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3) and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing virtue." But all waters are not connected with the waters of the Jordan which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism cannot be conferred with any water; and therefore water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.

Objection 5. Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used for baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.

On the contrary, our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this answers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers held that water is the first principle of all things.

Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith."

Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on John 3:5, "Unless a man be born again," etc., "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried, and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed."

Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained everywhere.

Reply to Objection 1. Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does not become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which "cometh by hearing" (Romans 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable, than fire, for Baptism.

But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth.): because tribulation washes away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in the Holy Ghost," we still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment."

Reply to Objection 2. Wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing, as water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is washed with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so abundant as water.

Reply to Objection 3. Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; blood, to redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the Eucharist, while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of Christ's blood.

Reply to Objection 4. Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason of, not connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring."

Reply to Objection 5. The blessing of the water is not essential to Baptism, but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of the faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from impeding the baptismal effect.

Reply
#67
and the last two articles of Question 66, you should really read the whole thing:

St. Thomas Wrote:Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.

On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."

I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.
Article 12. Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?

Objection 1. It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.

Objection 2. Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Corinthians 13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.

Objection 3. Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (Article 11), the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according to Hebrews 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.

On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Reply to Objection 1. A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.

Reply to Objection 2. The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.

Reply to Objection 3. The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
Reply
#68
(12-29-2011, 07:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote: What no one seems to be getting here is Trent declared water as being a necessity for baptism. We are bound to that under pain of anathema.

Any baptism that does not involve actual water contradicts Trent. Why is that so impossible?

Are you going to avoid my concerns addressed to you again?

Very well, I can see you're not able to answer my direct concern so fwiw.........

Thou shalt not kill is "de fide" in the moral world. So why is not every act of killing sinful?
Because in order to defend our own life, there is such a thing as justifiable and even accidental killing.

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?
1) Trent teaches both the Body and Blood are present in the host.
2) Children are not under obligation to receive Our Lord until they reach the age of reason - once they reach that age, they are bound to receive Our Lord.

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).

What other reasons? I am asking for teachings that do not contradict that which has already been infallibly taught - no one has even remotely come close to replying with a non-contradictory teaching...............yet for whatever reason, they choose to believe they can mesh teachings that are clearly contradictory.

Trent says the Sacrament is necessary for salvation, BOD says it is not. FYI, THAT is contradictory.
Reply
#69
(12-29-2011, 07:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Okay, clearly you have little idea about what St. Thomas taught, so here, have some more:

Clearly you have not read anything I have asked for. So, fwiw, I'll ask again.

Please show teachings on BOD from the Ordinary Magisterium that do not contradict the infallible teachings of the Perennial Magisterium.

I offered the example of infallible from Trent right here: 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.

Now, if you can say that Trent did not mean what it said in the above canon, I ask you to provide evidence of this - otherwise, the first thing Trent says is that ya gotta have water.
Reply
#70
(12-29-2011, 07:25 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Okay, clearly you have little idea about what St. Thomas taught, so here, have some more:

Clearly you have not read anything I have asked for. So, fwiw, I'll ask again.

Please show teachings on BOD from the Ordinary Magisterium that do not contradict the infallible teachings of the Perennial Magisterium.

I offered the example of infallible from Trent right here: 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.

Now, if you can say that Trent did not mean what it said in the above canon, I ask you to provide evidence of this - otherwise, the first thing Trent says is that ya gotta have water.

So did St. Thomas, but there is still BoD and BoB.  Trent's doctrine is St. Thomas' doctrine, through and through.  Where does it contradict him on BoD and BoB?  Why didn't any Tridentine theologians seem to notice this contradiction?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)