Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
#81
"CANON IV.-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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

Trent itself says that the desire for a sacrament has a certain grace in it.  Following the universal, Ordinary teaching of the Church.
Reply
#82
This open letter is a good break down of how Trent is following St. Thomas, and how baptism of desire is there to be found in the Tridentine doctrine: http://www.romancatholicism.org/trent-baptism.htm
Reply
#83
(12-29-2011, 06:56 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: You aren't addressing other examples I give you.

I'm not sure those are the right examples. You're talking about Scripture passages that have since been clarified by the Church, which is no difference than the Scripture passages on Baptism being clarified by the Church.

Quote:Thou shalt not kill is "de fide" in the moral world. So why is not every act of killing sinful?

Thou shalt not kill is an Old Testament commandment that was clarified by the Church.

Quote: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?

Also in Scripture and then clarified by the Church.

The Church tells us how we are to understand the passages in Scripture, and the Church has very clearly stated that true and natural water is necessary for Baptism, even going so far as to warn those who would turn it into some metaphor.
Reply
#84
Sure, and it has also made it clear that desire for the Sacraments, explicit and implicit, have potentially salvific value.  That Modernists use this as a wedge for indifferentism does not change that this is the case.
Reply
#85
(12-29-2011, 08:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, and it has also made it clear that desire for the Sacraments, explicit and implicit, have potentially salvific value.  That Modernists use this as a wedge for indifferentism does not change that this is the case.

The Church cannot make clear that the "desire" for the sacraments suffices without contradicting her own infallible statements to the contrary.
Reply
#86
Jenn,
Why would Trent ever use the phrase "desire for them" in reference to the sacraments if it wasn't interested in introducing any mitigation into their doctrine, and one that previously existed to boot. The other canon clarifies that this is a teaching against the Protestants who defended a "faith alone" method, which negated the necessity of some or all the sacraments in ANY form, including perfect contrition.

CANON IV.-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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Reply
#87
(12-29-2011, 08:26 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(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?

Like the Baptism He instituted and the Church has defined.


(12-29-2011, 08:26 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(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

Unfortunately, instead of providing what I asked for you choose to claim I strangle the faith - which is fresh.
Reply
#88
Read the views of Huldrych Zwingli to see what was being taught against. The teaching was not against Thomas Aquinas!

Quote:Modifying a literalist interpretation of a passage, he paid attention to the immediate context and attempted to understand the purpose behind it. He compared passages of scripture and used analogies, a method he describes in A Friendly Exegesis (1527). Two analogies that he used quite effectively were between baptism and circumcision and between the eucharist and Passover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of...ch_Zwingli

Quote:Meanwhile, Calvin had established the Reformation in Geneva. Calvin differed with Zwingli on the eucharist and criticised him for regarding it as simply a metaphorical event. In 1549, however, Bullinger and Calvin succeeded in overcoming the differences in doctrine and produced the Consensus Tigurinus (Zurich Consensus). They declared that the eucharist was not just symbolic of the meal, but they also rejected the Lutheran position that the body and blood of Christ is in union with the elements.
Reply
#89
(12-29-2011, 08:49 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 08:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Sure, and it has also made it clear that desire for the Sacraments, explicit and implicit, have potentially salvific value.  That Modernists use this as a wedge for indifferentism does not change that this is the case.

The Church cannot make clear that the "desire" for the sacraments suffices without contradicting her own infallible statements to the contrary.

Even though Trent did define just such, as Scriptorum just pointed out?  :eyeroll:
Reply
#90
(12-29-2011, 08:30 PM)Parmandur Wrote: "CANON IV.-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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

Trent itself says that the desire for a sacrament has a certain grace in it.  Following the universal, Ordinary teaching of the Church.

So we simply neglect reading the first part of the canon all together?
It does have a certain grace in it - what it does not have in it is salvation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)