Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(12-30-2011, 09:46 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
Are you now arguing that a man cannot be justified without receiving the actual sacrament, viz. Penance?  Because Trent says otherwise:


Or are you arguing that there two different states of justification, one for the baptized and one for catechumens?  Please show me where the Church teaches this, if this is indeed your claim.

A man dying with perfect charity dies justified, in the state of grace and thus merits eternal life.  Even Trent states that the final cause of justification is the glory of God and eternal life (cf. Sess. VI, ch. vii: Denz. 799).  You've already admitted that an unbaptized man can be justified and in the state of grace.  That's the Catholic version of "being saved."

No, I am saying that nowhere does Trent teach that one unbaptized goes to heaven.
Reply
(12-30-2011, 10:56 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 10:04 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: If "baptism of desire" is a substitute for true baptism, then how about the other sacraments?

Can I marry by desire? By ordained by desire? Receive last rites by desire?, etc.

If the sacrament of Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul, then don't all other sacraments leave an indelible mark?

If Extreme Unction can be given more than once, then cannot all of the other sacraments as well?

There's something to be said for distinctions, because Catholic theology is full of them.

To answer your question more directly, the sacraments of Baptism and Penance can be desired:

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them..." (Sess. VII, can. iv: Denz. 847).  See also Denz. 796 and 898.

You said above: "the sacraments of Baptism and Penance can be desired"........... Read what the canon says *first*, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous"......

Does what you just say agree with Trent - or did you just say the Sacraments are superfluous?

Again, Trent is defining the Sacraments, *not* the desire for them.
Reply
(12-30-2011, 11:45 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of necessity, or of martyrdom" -- Condemned (Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 71: Denz. 1071).

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma11.php

I'm simply trying to follow the solemn teaching of Pope St. Pius V.

A crime is something committed - ie something one actually does. Original sin is not a crime. 
Reply
(12-30-2011, 07:06 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 06:25 PM)Jenn Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 01:51 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: 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 Trent stated plainly that actual water is necessary for Baptism, then by default that closes the way for any other form of Baptism. You cannot say that you aren't denying Trent and then in the next breath deny what Trent is saying. If you say that actual water is not necessary for Baptism, then by default you are denying Trent. Either it says actual water or it doesn't. Clearly, it does. Additionally, since the Holy Ghost prevents an infallible statement from containing error, we cannot make assumptions about what Trent "intended". If we're going to make assumptions about what Trent intended, then we are also making assumptions about what the Holy Ghost intended. If Trent said actual water, and the Holy Ghost protects infallible statements from error, then we can only come to one conclusion: actual water is necessary.

From Fr. Cekada:

"I would then follow with a raft of material from other post-Tridentine theologians, and then perhaps throw in something from the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique about the specific heresies (Luther’s teaching that beer or milk could be used to confer the sacrament of baptism; Calvin’s, that 'water' in John 3:5 was only a metaphor for the Holy Ghost) that canon 2 was formulated to condemn."

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

This is confirmed by other magisterial teachings of the Church, namely that neither saliva (Denz. 412) nor beer (n. 447) are acceptable "matter" for the Sacrament of Baptism.  That natural water alone is acceptable, see also: Denz. 430, 449, 482, 542, 574a, 696, 858 and canon 737, sec. I of the 1917 CIC (Systematic Index of Dogmatic and Moral Matters, p. 37).

In other words, the context in which the anathema was given is key.

In the process of condemning beer, milk and saliva by stating that natural water alone is acceptable, what makes anyone think water alone means water or desire?
Reply
(12-30-2011, 10:09 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Man frequently uses the words "unless" and "necessary"  allowing for a deliberately unspoken exception.  We say "water is necessary for tomatoes to grow", and it IS truly necessary, yet God may provide a miraculous exception.   A mother may say "Unless you get in the car in 1 minute no dessert for you", and she is not lying or forgetful or powerless,  yet if the child twists his ankle, she makes an exception, and not by rushing the child only  to make the 1 minute deadline.  How foolish would the mother be to add the words "but if you really are unable, I will make an exception"?  God allows men to "twist their ankle" on the way to obey a command, and does not count this a sin, but doesn't make such exceptions explicit!    It doesn't matter that God has absolute power and can foresee everything, He still allows such impossibility for man and can make an exception [i]without being explict - or saying "probably".  God is more merciful and wise than a mother.

God CAN
1) give Baptism via water, in the ordinary way
2) give Baptism via water, bringing a preacher and water by a miracle
3) give Baptism of Desire, by the desire and grace that ONLY HE can instill in a soul

If you disallow 3 you are binding Almighty God to water, and denying that all things are possible to Him.  (In my sample, a mother is not bound to drag her injured child to meet the deadline, for she set the deadline.  God is not bound to obey the command that He meant for US!)

Using the word "Unless" does not imply a truth binding the Trinity.  It implies a command that binds us in the eyes of God

Imagine a great king, making a proclamation "Unless a knight retrieves a diamond from our magical mines today, he shall not compete for the hand of my daughter". The solemnity of the words does not bind the king to make no exception if a knight is heroic but cannot meet the deadline - no matter what power the king may have to magically transport the knight.


No one disputes that God, being God, is *not* bound by His own laws - the fact of the matter is that Trent never teaches such a thing, nor does Trent teach such a thing as BOD, nor does it teach that there are any exceptions or other forms of Baptism. The other baptisms are strictly a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium and seems obvious that they contradict Trent.

Trent says water is necessary. It says the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. BOD is not a Sacrament. People say Trent rewards salvation via BOD when Trent says no such thing.

I claim those who say there is salvation via BOD contradict Trent and have asked for anyone to show where I am wrong - all I keep getting are obvious contradictions based on the great St. Thomas etc and misinterpretations of Trent.
I have a few more posts to read but so far, all that has been posted in favor of BOD still contradict Trent.


Reply
(12-30-2011, 10:15 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: No one is denying the necessity, as I have stated many times. What is stated is the necessity is not absolute but relative. What is hard to understand about this? Do we need to run down the perhaps hundred of necessities that God and the Church places on us that are not absolute. Here, let's try this again:

“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 179 under Baptism)

Sed quamvis haec ita sint non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramenlum huic hominum generi statim tribuere sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet, quum illis qui rationis usu praediti sunt baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam ct iustitiam si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint (Pars 2, Caput 2, Quaestio 25, p. 145).

God help you if that doesn't suffice!

That is, baptism of desire. In fact, the Church teaches that delaying adult baptism a little is advantageous. But if such a possibility as baptism of desire was impossible, then such a delay would be positively sinful, as in the case of infant baptism, which is not to be delayed.

I am sorry, but you are obstinate, and holding to an utterly unfounded reservation. An relative necessity is a necessity that is only operative under the appropriate conditions. At this point, there is no further debate. This is just unCatholic to utterly deny to see this point, which is not complex. I can understand having question about a mystery like the Trinity, but this is elementary logic. Please review this thread over and pray about it. Anyone who denies the possibility of baptism of desire is on extremely sandy ground, religiously and logically. This and EENS people have trouble with because of their extreme legalism. Look at it for what is is, an extreme view which the Church before and after VII rejected.

You are not reading what is written again.

NOBODY disputes that "BOD" can bring one to  grace and righteousness.
IF YOU READ YOUR OWN QUOTE, you'll see that:

1) No where does the catechism say salvation will be granted - only that BOD would suffice for grace and  righteousness. "Grace and righteousness" is not salvation.  - As I said, no where does the Church teach salvation via BOD - salvation is not even mentioned in your above quote so why so eager to reward salvation to the unbaptized?

2) The catechism also makes repentance for a life badly spent an additional requirement for an unbaptized person to be placed in the state of grace and the righteousness. Not salvation. So per the catechism, one who is unbaptized must not only have the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism aka "desire", one must also repent for their life badly spent.

3)Some unforeseen accident means what it says - - -  what it does *not* say is "accidental death". As much as folks read "accidental death" into it, it's not in there anywhere, that is not what it says. That is not what it means - if they meant to say "accidental death", then why didn't they? Are we to presume that they were incapable of their duties, incapable of saying exactly what they meant? Nowhere in Trent or it's Catechism will you find "accidental death". 

4) No need to even go into the whole unforeseen accident making anything impossible to God thing.

5) As I said, read what it says, not what you want it to say and you will see that it says no such thing as salvation via BOD -  so hopefully it is now clear that  no where does Trent or the Catechism of Trent teach that one can be saved if he dies by accident without the sacrament of Baptism.   

Reply
(12-31-2011, 03:55 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Father Cekada's original post that spawned this thread appears to have been prophetic: 

(12-28-2011, 10:20 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: As I point out in the article, the underlying difficulty with Feeneyism is that it rejects the principles that form the very foundation for the science of Catholic theology.

It's a waste of time debating with someone like this, because you have no common first principles at all. It's like arguing over the structure of a Mozart symphony with someone who knows nothing of musical forms and is tone deaf to boot.

lol yes, all I want to know is who are we bound to believe, we already know via the tons of threads on FE alone that BOD contradicts infallible teachings.


Reply
Stubborn,
I would like to go back to your admittance that BoD can avail one of sanctifying grace and justification.  The Church teaches that sanctifying grace "makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of Heaven" (Ott, FCD, p. 258.).  Both Ott and Tanquerey (BSTD, vol. II, p. 124) denote this doctrine as being de fide.

Do you deny that an unbaptized man, but who nevertheless desires it with perfect charity and who is thus justified and in sanctifying grace, has a claim to the inheritance of Heaven?

If so, then you should be consistent and deny that BoD can make a man just.  But in doing that, you'll necessarily contradict Pope St. Pius V, who taught that catechumens and mortal sinners could have perfect charity, be just, have the remission of sins and not be guilty of eternal damnation.

I implore you to pay special attention to error #3: http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/...eyites.htm

The section on Thomistic Theology is also quite important.
Reply
Jenn, Stubborn, and whoever else,
You can't see the elephant right in front of your face.

When Trent says in one breath there is a necessity, and in the next breath clearly qualifies the necessity in its own catechism, which happens to agree with the majority teaching before and after Trent, you don't see that the need is one that is RELATIVE. Relative means that it relates only to a given situations. Thank God the men at Trent have defined that for us -- quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint (so as to prevent them from being able to be washed with the salutary water). Case closed.

And the other case, which indicates a fondness for shifting the goal-posts when the other arguments fade before one's eyes, is "grace and righteousness". This is rich. Like Trent or any other Church teacher is going to teach that you almost got to heaven. Sort of like making fun of them -- if only the bastards could get some water! Grace and righteousness (gratia et justitia) are none other than sanctifying grace and justification, which are the wings on which souls fly to heaven. Case closed.

And as for "perpetual understanding", you are guilty of offending that, since the perpetual understanding has been a relative necessity of water. Case closed.

If some saints hard a hard time reconciling this teaching, then that's fine. Many had a hard time figuring out the Immaculate Conception. But after Trent and the last 400 years, we have no excuse except obstinacy or lack of intelligence.  Case closed.

And here is my literal reading, for your edification:

But even though this is the case, yet the Church is not accustomed to immediately confer the sacrament of baptism to this race of men, but she has determined [it] to be postponed for a certain time. Nor in fact is this delay a danger even as much as it is imminent in regard to children, as said above, because to them that are endowed with the use of reason, sustaining an intention as well as a determination of baptism, and with repentance for life's action badly done, may sufficiently be for grace and righteousness, if some unexpected emergency should hinder, so as to prevent them from being able to be washed with the salutary water.

Sed quamvis haec ita sint non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet, quum illis qui rationis usu praediti sunt baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam ct iustitiam si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint.
Reply
(12-31-2011, 05:27 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 09:46 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Stubborn,
Are you now arguing that a man cannot be justified without receiving the actual sacrament, viz. Penance?  Because Trent says otherwise:


Or are you arguing that there two different states of justification, one for the baptized and one for catechumens?  Please show me where the Church teaches this, if this is indeed your claim.

A man dying with perfect charity dies justified, in the state of grace and thus merits eternal life.  Even Trent states that the final cause of justification is the glory of God and eternal life (cf. Sess. VI, ch. vii: Denz. 799).  You've already admitted that an unbaptized man can be justified and in the state of grace.  That's the Catholic version of "being saved."

No, I am saying that nowhere does Trent teach that one unbaptized goes to heaven.
Nowhere does Trent teach that one who is baptized goes to heaven.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)