Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
#71
I mean, seriously, this canon of Trent is not a problem for BoD, it doesn't deny it anyways.
Reply
#72
(12-29-2011, 07:20 PM)Stubborn Wrote: 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.

Thank you for admitting that an infallible statement can have mitigation. We believe the whole Faith, not just one Council or one Pope. That's why there is a traditionalist movement, because we believe the whole deposit, and not just one Council, or pick and choose outside of context.

So the commandment to not kill is mitigated based on intention.

So the commandment to eat Jesus' flesh and drink Jesus' blood is mitigated by reason, and by doctrinal clarification.

And clearly baptism of desire, as a possibility, introduces a mitigation (or exception) NOT envisioned in the original commandment in Trent, as NOT envisioned like in the two preceding cases, that baptism of water may not be required in cases in which a catechumen unexpectedly dies.

Place these in the context of what Trent says in other places, what the great teachers of the Church teach, what the development of the doctrine has been since the 16th century, etc., and BoD is not a hard doctrine to reconcile.

Please read up on the principle of accommodation/charity. I admire your zeal, but you are squeezing too tight.
Reply
#73
(12-29-2011, 07:28 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(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?

So you are not reading any contradiction. How is that possible?
Reply
#74
(12-29-2011, 07:57 PM)Stubborn Wrote: So you are not reading any contradiction. How is that possible?

Because the key point is necessity versus impossibility.

Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm

"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."

Please see that the necessity of water baptism is relative. Relative to what? Relative to availability of the means. In addition, if such a necessity was absolute, it would be a sin to require a catechumen to undergo instruction, and require them to be informed.

There is no contradiction because Trent never intended to say that perfect contrition with desire for a sacrament does not justify. Such a statement would have taken up a large amount of discussion and clarification in the actual decrees and catechism because it would have been novel to deny the efficacy of perfect contrition, and quite frankly unsupportable.
Reply
#75
(12-29-2011, 07:35 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:20 PM)Stubborn Wrote: 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.

Thank you for admitting that an infallible statement can have mitigation. We believe the whole Faith, not just one Council or one Pope. That's why there is a traditionalist movement, because we believe the whole deposit, and not just one Council, or pick and choose outside of context.

So the commandment to not kill is mitigated based on intention.

So the commandment to eat Jesus' flesh and drink Jesus' blood is mitigated by reason, and by doctrinal clarification.

And clearly baptism of desire, as a possibility, introduces a mitigation (or exception) NOT envisioned in the original commandment in Trent, as NOT envisioned like in the two preceding cases, that baptism of water may not be required in cases in which a catechumen unexpectedly dies.

Place these in the context of what Trent says in other places, what the great teachers of the Church teach, what the development of the doctrine has been since the 16th century, etc., and BoD is not a hard doctrine to reconcile.

Please read up on the principle of accommodation/charity. I admire your zeal, but you are squeezing too tight.

If I looked it up, I know I could find where the Authority of the Church taught there is justifiable killing and I know Trent taught about Communion.

I am saying that BOD has NEVER ANYWHERE been taught EVER except by some theologians including Dr.s of the Church.
I am saying that it is undeniable that what the Church has taught infallibly contradicts BOD - and that for anyone with the use of reason who can read, this is obvious.

I've asked for teachings that do not contradict infallible teachings yet all anyone does is provide teachings that obviously contradict what the Church has already infallibly defined - then say they do not contradict - this is crazy.

You said: that baptism of water may not be required in cases in which a catechumen unexpectedly dies. Well, you may be right but by god there is not any authoritative teaching from the Perennial Magisterium that agrees with you.

And for the record, *we all* die unexpectedly, this is why we are all supposed to be ever ready to face our Lord when we all stand accused before Him, this is why we need to pray for the grace of a happy death and for the grace of final perseverance - or do not expect it. Whatever happened to: Watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come.

I was taught to always be ready precisely because if we die and we're not ready, we go to hell forever. BOD makes this concern a non issue for those who *should* be most concerned.
BOD conveniently settles the inner hidden fear God put in us all that we are all born with - the fear of not knowing when or how we'll die. The Church teaches  the above scripture means that we all are supposed to be ever expecting it, and ever watchful.
There are no proviso's to anyone - BOD makes an exception only for those who should be most diligent of all expecting death and watchful for it - and that contradicts the teaching of the Church as well.


 
Reply
#76
(12-29-2011, 08:11 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:57 PM)Stubborn Wrote: So you are not reading any contradiction. How is that possible?

Because the key point is necessity versus impossibility.

Not so.

The key point is water has been declared an absolute necessity - whoever does not read it that way does so of their own free will.

And where does impossibility come from - since when is anything impossible for God?
Reply
#77
(12-29-2011, 07:57 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 07:28 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(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?

So you are not reading any contradiction. How is that possible?

Certainly there is no contradiction;  refer again to St. Thomas, which I cited above.  Msgr. Lefebfre didn't see a contradiction, nor St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, nor Ludwig Ott.  Over the history of Catholic theology, Baptism of Desire and of Blood have been uncontroversial, and no contradiction with the Council of Trent detected.
Reply
#78
(12-29-2011, 08:11 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I am saying that it is undeniable that what the Church has taught infallibly contradicts BOD - and that for anyone with the use of reason who can read, this is obvious.

I deny what you assert, and I have the ability to read.  As far as I know, so did St. Robert and St. Alphonsus, who knew St. Thomas and Trent passingly well.  Your reading of Trent does not agree with the ordinary reading of the Canons.  It is a 20th century novelty.
Reply
#79
(12-29-2011, 07:35 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: ...
And clearly baptism of desire, as a possibility, introduces a mitigation (or exception) NOT envisioned in the original commandment in Trent, as NOT envisioned like in the two preceding cases, that baptism of water may not be required in cases in which a catechumen unexpectedly dies.

Exceptions can be left out  intentionally even if they are envisioned (known in advance).   We leave them out because they introduce excessive detail, taking away from the central meaning.  We leave them out because they can be misinterpreted (e.g. by those who don't want to accept the central meaning in any instance).

Man frequently uses the words "unless" and "necessary"  allowing for a deliberately unspoken exception.  We say "water is necessary for tomatoes to grow", and it IS truly necessary, yet God may provide a miraculous exception.   A mother may say "Unless you get in the car in 1 minute no dessert for you", and she is not lying or forgetful,  yet if the child twists his ankle, she makes an exception.  God allows men to "twist their ankle" on the way to obey a command, and does not count this a sin.  It doesn't matter that God has absolute power and can foresee everything, He still allows such impossibility, and can make an exception.  God is more merciful than a mother.

Council of Trent, Section on Baptism, Canon 2 Wrote:CANON II.-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.

This canon is talking about the SACRAMENT, for which true and natural water - and not fruit juice or alcohol etc - is necessary. This does not rule out baptism of desire, since OF COURSE baptism of desire would not require water, but we are not talking of baptism of desire here. Secondly this Canon and Christ's words deliberately leave out exceptions, just as any father or mother's command to their children would do.
Reply
#80
(12-29-2011, 08:14 PM)Stubborn Wrote: And where does impossibility come from - since when is anything impossible for God?

Like baptism of desire?

(12-29-2011, 08:14 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Not so.

The key point is water has been declared an absolute necessity - whoever does not read it that way does so of their own free will.

And where does impossibility come from - since when is anything impossible for God?

Brother, you earn your name. Unfortunately your attitude to Church doctrine will get you into more "contradictions" then you can handle, and I would see either loss of faith, or creation of your own guides, i.e., heresy. I am not referring to BoD, which is held as a possibility, but I can envision your approach having problems with even a de fide pronouncement. You seem to have no regard for the last 500 years of teaching regarding this, not to mention teachings which predate Trent, which gives nice bookends to the teaching. A book saying "de fide" in it can only take a person's faith so far. What about the problem of evil if you want to tackle contradictions! I have made the argument in my posts, and others can read it. For now, I leave you with prayers. Please loosen the grip a little. You hold the Faith, not strangle it. I don't mean disrespect, but I offer it in a spirit of charity. + PAX
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)