Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(12-31-2011, 01:37 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 12:33 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:40 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: 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?

I am saying that Trent never confirms salvation to one who is unbaptized. PLEASE show me where I am wrong.


(12-31-2011, 07:40 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: 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.

That BOD *can* make a man Just is not in question - never was because Trent infallibly declares that to be true.  The thing you are not admitting is that per Trent or any other Council, salvation is not rewarded via BOD - why can't BOD supporters admit that when it is only obvious?

Can you not admit that were Trent to reward one who is unbaptized salvation that they would then contradict the words of Our Lord? Even Our Lord does not say one who is unbaptized goes to hell - only that unless they are baptized, that "he cannot enter into the kingdom of God".

For the life of me I can hardly comprehend how folks continue to defend what TRENT DID NOT SAY.

I fail to understand how the magisterial acts of Trent are the only ones that matter.  Just because it didn't define or teach more explicitly about BoD does not prevent later Pontiffs or councils from doing so.  We ought not to read Trent in a vacuum, which is what you appear to do.  You disregard the teaching of Popes St. Pius V and Bl. Pius IX in favor of your own private interpretation of Trent, which is contrary to a nearly unanimous consent of theologians, both before and after that council.  How is it that you and you alone know better than centuries' worth of Catholic theological experts (whose works were approved by Rome and which taught countless seminarians), who taught in Pontifical universities?  Let's not forget the sainted Pontiffs and Doctors you contradict.

I never said Trent was the only one that mattered - feel free to post anything from any Council that contradicts Trent in support of BOD.
I am saying that Trent never teaches anything whatsoever about BOD - not that it didn't teach it more explicitly.

Trent teaches about Baptism, it teaches of the necessity of water, it's main ingredient. This teaching agrees with Scripture.

You BOD supporters keep siting OM teaching which contradicts infallible teaching - which one is to be believed?

I've already pointed out where the catechism as well as the council NEVER rewards salvation to anyone unbaptized - never implies salvation to one who is unbaptized - so who is doing the misinterpreting here - it is you, the ones who claim one can be saved without the Sacrament of baptism.

No one has shown me where I am wrong - all you all keep saying is NOT what the Councils teach, which contradict Trent, then you say I am misinterpreting the teachings - - - do any of you comprehend what you read?

How about answering what I asked already? . . . . . . . .

(12-31-2011, 05:32 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-30-2011, 10:56 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: 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 Sacrament is superfluous?

Again, Trent is defining the Sacraments, *not* the desire for them.



(12-31-2011, 01:37 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith" -- Condemned (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, 22).

This aptly describes your attitude towards the teaching of the Magisterium.

Finally, there are quite a few verses where our Lord promises salvation to those who love Him (cf. Matt. X; John XIV).  Scriptorium has already discussed absolute and relative necessity, but it does not appear that you have addressed that long-held distinction used by Catholic theologians.

I agree with Pius IX - he does not mention what we are supposed to do when Catholic teachers and writers teach contrary to defined dogma.

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED ABOVE PLEASE.

Does what you just say agree with Trent - or did you just say the Sacrament is superfluous?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by Stubborn - 12-31-2011, 02:56 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)