Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(01-02-2012, 09:36 PM)columb Wrote:
(01-02-2012, 07:25 PM)Doce Me Wrote: (If you haven't read the post before mine, do so!)
[quote='Stubborn' pid='945775' dateline='1325359935']
For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

It would follow that the many catechisms and theologians that teach baptism of desire are all guilty of stupidity, carelessness, or deception (or self-deception) in claiming something that is obviously contrary to truth - and then contradicting themselves explicitly!  Doesn't it occur to you, beneath your stubbornness, that you should be a little humble and look more closely to see if it is rather you who are missing something true, even if not so obvious? 

I think that one key thing you are missing is that in a command the words "necessary" or  "unless" do not always bind the law giver to allow no exceptions - and that most often a law is given without explicitly listing the exceptions.  This is true both for man's law and for God's.  God did not list all the exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill".  Exceptions weren't left out because God was unknowing or powerless, but for the good of those to whom the law was given.  In the same way I think that Christ's words "unless a man be born again..." allowed - not by my say-so, but by the consensus of the Church - an unspoken exception in the case of Baptism of Desire. 

You might make the argument  "Since UNLESS in Christ's words means no exceptions,  therefore God MUST provide water baptism, since nothing is impossible to Him".  But this argument does not follow, if UNLESS can allow unspoken exceptions.  The Church (just to start, in theologians and catechisms) DOES SOMETIMES SPEAK the exceptions. They cannot be denied without denying the teaching of the Church.
(01-02-2012, 09:36 PM)columb Wrote: If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" that it contains unspoken exceptions, in the verse being considered there is also linked in with "water" the words "the spirit" conjoined with the word "and."
Therefore if "unless" is permitting unspoken exceptions concerning "water," it must also contain unspoken exceptions concerning "the spirit." No?

No!   Because there can be exceptions does not mean that there can be any exception you can think of!  The Holy Ghost or the spirit  (in Sanctifying grace) is given even in baptism of desire, otherwise it would be totally meaningless.  NOT (WATER and SPIRIT)  = (NOT WATER or NOT SPIRIT), and one instance of that is NOT WATER (but do have SPIRIT)

(01-02-2012, 09:36 PM)columb Wrote: Regarding "Thou shalt not kill," the exceptions were already known even before the commandment was explicitly known, otherwise the death penalty for certain crimes and the "Just war" exceptions would have been sinful after the commandment was given. As this indeed was not the case it is obvious that these unspoken exceptions presented no contradiction in OT times and these exceptions can clearly be seen as explicit in the deposit of faith and not in contradiction to the teachings of the apostles.  This is why even those who perceive the contradictions contained in BoD teaching, see no such contradiction in the commandment "thou shalt not kill."

I was trying to make a general point that exceptions are not always explicitly explained, whatever the reason may be.  One reason may be that they are already known.  Another may be that they apply in only the rarest of cases, and that mentioning them would minimize the importance of the main case.  They can be explictly explained only at later times, or when needed (e.g. when a catechumen was martyred).

You can (as you do) think that baptism of desire is false for any number of reasons.  But don't think it is false by this fact alone: that sometimes it is not explicitly explained as an exception.

STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;

(12-31-2011, 03:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

By my understanding, what goes through the mind of those Catholics, Saints, and Theologians who say these things is that Christ had in mind the exception of Baptism of Desire, even though He wisely did not speak it.  This being so, THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. These Theologians and other Catholics have the AUTHORITY to say that there is such an exception. When Trent says the Sacrament of Baptism is Necessary, this does NOT mean there is no exception.  When theologians in one place say Baptism is necessary, this does not contradict their saying elsewhere that Baptism of Desire is an exception.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by Doce Me - 01-02-2012, 11:16 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)