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

What is not being understood is that the canon of Trent is not being denied. That is de fide plainly. What is being asserted is that Trent never intended to close the way for something like Baptism of Desire. If indeed they did, they would have explained that in much detail since it has been taught in some way back to the early Church. Just read Ott quoting Augustine and Ambrose, not to mention the greatest mind of the Church, Thomas Aquinas. Trent stands. Interpreting dogma includes context. The words are plain, but no one speaks in a vacuum. Furthermore, dogmas assert only what they assert. Baptism of Desire merely says that the necessity of water is relative necessity, which is implied in Trent if we read the previous 1500 years of teaching, and absolutely confirmed when we read the 400 years after Trent. What is a more pertinent question is how your belief in the Catholic Church discounts the plain teaching that perfect contrition may justify united with a desire for the sacrament, as explicitly also taught by Trent. So the rejection of this possibility is simply not a Catholic doctrine. And so either you don't believe what the Church teaches, or you need to read up more and figure out this reconciliation which the Church has no problem with at all. That's why I said to Stubborn that he is headed to apostasy or schism or heresy. Because as you notice, the attitude is not that the Church's teachers are plainly right, and I need to figure out the solution, but the attitude is rather that I am right, and the Church needs to rescind a teaching, or non serviam. It is really a prideful thing to think that . And out of charity, the argument is very clearly laid out here. This is not difficult, so there is something else going on that is causing some not to accept this doctrine. Most of all I believe it is a exaggerated rationalistic/dogmatic/legalist tendency, in which the strict words don't allow anything other than the most strict and legal sense. But the plain fact is that doesn't accord at all with true Catholic teaching, which is a holistic system taking into account intention, context, precedent, implication, etc. Generally such a faith is dry and dogmatic. We are allowed rational explanation, but this has been given to you, not to mention the explanations of Thomas Aquinas, and the proof in the Council of Trent itself. This is why I say that the Faith is to be held, not strangled. God is justice and mercy, i.e., the words have literal meaning with implications which are most favorable for the salvation of souls.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by Scriptorium - 12-30-2011, 01:51 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)