Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(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


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by Stubborn - 12-31-2011, 06:03 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)