Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(12-29-2011, 10:24 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-29-2011, 09:10 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: 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.

Does it not stand to reason that men who receive the sacraments should also have a "desire for them?" The missionaries had to be extremely careful. They were not to be baptizing anyone unless they were as sure as they could be that the potential convert was a true believer. In short, they had to desire to be baptized (I have to wonder why the missionaries put themselves at risk of being eaten alive or roasted over a spit if BOD would have sufficed, but I digress..). That one phrase keeps popping up in these discussions as though the word "desire" means that BOD has been formally defined. Doesn't it matter that true and natural water has been formally defined? I simply don't understand the disconnect. The statement "true and natural water" is there in plain English for anyone to read.

Quote: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.

How do you reconcile your interpretation of the above with this:

"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema."

As I've mentioned before, if anyone can point me to the formally defined dogma of BOD, I'm all eyes. As is customary during this debate, there are endless posts explaining to me why I should not take this infallible statement at face value. That I simply am not understanding it, or I'm reading it all wrong, or I don't have the training to read it "in context". In short, I am being told that Trent didn't mean to say exactly what it DID say, so I shouldn't take it too seriously. Obviously, I reject those assertions.

Well said Jenn, clearly written and easily understood!  :clap:

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by Stubborn - 12-30-2011, 06:14 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)