Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
#31
BOD is based on perfect contrition with desire for the sacrament, which justifies. How is this hard to understand? Do I need to copy and paste the thousands of quotes from the Bible and Church Fathers about love? How about perfect love and friendship with God?

Just one:
Summa, Suppl. Q. 5

Contrition can be considered in two ways, either as part of a sacrament, or as an act of virtue, and in either case it is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, but not in the same way. Because, as part of a sacrament, it operates primarily as an instrument for the forgiveness of sin, as is evident with regard to the other sacraments (cf. Sent. iv, D, 1, 1, 4: III, 62, 1); while, as an act of virtue, it is the quasi-material cause of sin's forgiveness. For a disposition is, as it were, a necessary condition for justification, and a disposition is reduced to a material cause, if it be taken to denote that which disposes matter to receive something. It is otherwise in the case of an agent's disposition to act, because this is reduced to the genus of efficient cause.

Reply
#32
(12-29-2011, 03:57 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:46 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 03:29 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What is the consequence for embracing BoD? Would a high level clergyman like Lefebvre been in mortal sin for embracing it?

I don't know what the consequence is or if people who embrace it commit Mortal Sin or not - that's for God or the Pope to say IMO.

Fr. Wathen wrote: the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

This makes probably the most sense to me (I don't expect others will feel the same) in that because so many people believe in some version of BOD that there may well be no sin involved - hell, I dunno - I'm wanting to know who the hell are we supposed to believe myself lol

According to Father Cekada's chart that would mean it would be a mortal sin, which would lead to damnation.  It has often been pointed out here that prelates can't make an excuse based on ignorance because they should certainly know better. 

If the widespread belief of an error limits the sin involved, by that standard there would be no sin regarding holding a lot of the errors running around the church.

What are we supposed to believe? What the Church tell us. 

I agree error is error etc. -  but in this case, because *I believe* BOD *could be* proxima fidei or "nearly a doctrine" that there could be an exception because of who has been teaching it, namely, the Ordinary Magisterium. Either that the whole thing is a conspiracy theory that started after the modernists resurfaced 100 years ago and added BOD to all the catechisms and etc. which I don't buy.

So yes, what are we bound to? The certainly de fide teachings or the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium?

Well, think about it this way.  Who has a better grasp of the faith? You or Archbishop Lefebvre?
Reply
#33
Keep in mind also, that "baptism" is a stand in word for justification. The baptism of desire merely refers to justification through contrition and desire. The baptism of water baptism refers to the water washing. You have to read more than one sentence to understand this. Context!
Reply
#34
(12-29-2011, 04:31 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Well, think about it this way.  Who has a better grasp of the faith? You or Archbishop Lefebvre?

(12-29-2011, 03:00 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 01:57 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: This is what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say:

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

The above quote is confusing imo, however, the last sentence is plain enough  - and, to me, it obviously contradicts 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.

Now, whoever chooses to say that the above two different requirements for Baptism are clearly in agreement, please, enlighten us all. Other than that, to which authority and teaching are we bound?

Why not show how YOU can make the two different requirements agree.
Reply
#35
(12-29-2011, 04:30 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: BOD is based on perfect contrition with desire for the sacrament, which justifies. How is this hard to understand? Do I need to copy and paste the thousands of quotes from the Bible and Church Fathers about love? How about perfect love and friendship with God?

Just one:
Summa, Suppl. Q. 5

Contrition can be considered in two ways, either as part of a sacrament, or as an act of virtue, and in either case it is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, but not in the same way. Because, as part of a sacrament, it operates primarily as an instrument for the forgiveness of sin, as is evident with regard to the other sacraments (cf. Sent. iv, D, 1, 1, 4: III, 62, 1); while, as an act of virtue, it is the quasi-material cause of sin's forgiveness. For a disposition is, as it were, a necessary condition for justification, and a disposition is reduced to a material cause, if it be taken to denote that which disposes matter to receive something. It is otherwise in the case of an agent's disposition to act, because this is reduced to the genus of efficient cause.

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?
Reply
#36
(12-29-2011, 04:34 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Keep in mind also, that "baptism" is a stand in word for justification. The baptism of desire merely refers to justification through contrition and desire. The baptism of water baptism refers to the water washing. You have to read more than one sentence to understand this. Context!

I agree:

To phrase Trent's Canon in the affirmative, read what is bolded in red to get the context!

"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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema" (Decree on the Sacraments).
Reply
#37
(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?

Context: Protestants denying the need of water baptism. As for the saying of our Lord, did God contradict Himself? "Charity covereth a multitude of sins?"

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." (14th Session, Ch. 4))

The requirements of the sacraments are only operative to those who can receive them. Basic principle. For example, a man living out in timbucktoo does not sin for missing Mass. But our Lord said that the Eucharist is required for salvation! Clearly the continuous tradition of the Church is that the requirements of salvation relating to the material world are required when they are able to be procured.

You are taking the position of a legalist, that what really matters is the material act. We can't deny the material act, but there is no punishment for the impossible. Ah! All things are possible with God, therefore either the material aspect of the sacrament is supplied in some way, or the grace is given without the impossible material act.
Reply
#38
(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?

Context: Protestants denying the need of water baptism. As for the saying of our Lord, did God contradict Himself? "Charity covereth a multitude of sins?"

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.

(12-29-2011, 05:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: The requirements of the sacraments are only operative to those who can receive them. Basic principle. For example, a man living out in timbucktoo does not sin for missing Mass. But our Lord said that the Eucharist is required for salvation! Clearly the continuous tradition of the Church is that the requirements of salvation relating to the material world are required when they are able to be procured.

You are taking the position of a legalist, that what really matters is the material act. We can't deny the material act, but we there is no punishment for the impossible. Ah! All things are possible with God, therefore either the material aspect of the sacrament is supplied in some way, or the grace is given without the impossible material act.

Not true. I am not taking any legalist position, I am merely pointing out the obvious IMO.

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.
Reply
#39
(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".
Reply
#40
(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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)