Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
"So I suppose if you're gonna believe in salvation via BOD, it really does not matter that Trent's catechism teaches no such thing - right?"


"And for whatever it's worth, I have a complete set of Theology manuals from 1908 and have no need to fly,"

Wrong.  You do have need.  Consider the voice of St. Alphonsus calling back from his grave to tell you you do, with whom you have an issue.

"A) BOD teaches water is not necessary."

Wrong.  BOD does not teach that water is not necessary.  I reject the major, I beg your pardon.  Baptism of desire leaves in tact the Divine Precept to Receive the Sacrament of Holy Baptism of which, natural water is the only matter.

"All I am trying to do here is to get some BOD supporter to admit the obvious here - namely, that BOD is a completely different Baptism than the one defined at Trent."

You can have me for insofar as the following:  BOD is not a Sacrament.  It does not impart a Character, which is a loaded theological term.  Baptism is a Sacrament and imparts a Character.  The differences are not limited that.  Baptism of Desire is not strictly a Baptism, and it is not the Sacramental Baptism that was talked about at Trent.  It comes under a different section of Trent, the section on justification.  Baptism of desire is called a baptism because it effects some of what Sacramental Baptism effects, namely, the grace of ***Justification***!  And the Grace of Justification is a specific loaded term, that has lots of theology behind it alone.

To say that this is a matter that has been confused by "master's degrees," is simply to kick Our Lord Jesus Christ square in his mouth.  These master's degrees came from the Church, approved by the Church, and thus, came from the lips of our Lord.  You spurning this00 ancient and venerable wisdom is to spurn our Lord Himself and His Love for His sons and daughters who were willing to submit to the Church by learning what Christ taught them through His Church.

I find this terrible that you continue in this vain.

That this is permitted is an outrage.

I continue, most understandingly and deliberately, that this is a traditionalist problem of lay people.  The traditionalist sees something awry in V2, but does not come to the correct conclusions, and thus has the terrible problem of what to believe and not believe.  For me, the problem is settled, and the Deposit of Faith for me is as pristine as the snow that hasn't fallen in my part of the country yet.

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is as infallible as is the Extraordinary Magisterium, period.  Both are infallible.  Both require your assent.  Both are pristine.  Within the Theological Notae, all but those admitted as probable are Certain, which means, you must be certain about them.  The less than certain are probable, which means they are probable, and must be held as such.  The degrees of censorship are also to be held, no more, no less, than what they are given.

Same goes for the Desire for Baptism.  It must be held as formulated in the various locii, no more, or no less, as was held before.  You do not need to be an innovator, extrapolator, or clarifacator.  You need to be a docile submitter.

As for the "Desire for the Priesthood," or the "Desire for Marriage" that Vetus Ordo brought up.  No.  Nobody teaches such things.  These are fancy inventions of conjectural self-assertion.  Baptism is Baptism, Marriage is Marriage.  Why can these things not be equated or applied equally as such?  They are each unto their own and have their own teachings.  For the same reason you can not carve a statue out of grass, as you would wood from a tree, you can not apply teachings of Baptism to Marriage or the Priesthood.  But both grass and trees are plants is the argument.  

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by jordanawef - 12-31-2011, 06:40 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)