Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
#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


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by Scriptorium - 12-29-2011, 07:35 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)