Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
Quote from Doce Me:
"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 explicitly 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;"


Thank you Doce Me.
I was aware that you were generalizing and merely wished to point out that the generalization doesn't work when applied to BoD. However, this point is merely a side issue and indeed the problem with BoD doesn't arise from the fact that there are known legitimate exceptions in other areas.
You ask me to, "STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;"[/i] when it is the actual "contradictions" (in the plural) that are not being addressed, never mind resolved.
I would much preferred you answered the first part of my post which highlighted one such possible contradiction; that being; If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" contained in John 3:5 which you say allows for unspoken exceptions, in the verse there is also linked with the word "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?

If it has already been stated by a supreme Pontiff that there is but  "one God, one faith, one baptism," beyond which it is not lawful to speculate further, by what authority does one speculate  on or introduce another baptism which has the capability of overriding the necessity of the ONE Baptism which we profess in the credo?

(Pope Pius IX, from Singulari Quadem:
“For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2),we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’[Eph. 4:5];    it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." 

and to do so against an ex cathedra pronouncement, Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent,Sess. 7, Can. 5; “If anyone says that baptism (the Sacrament) is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

How is one to hold this as de fide while simultaneously holding that the Sacrament of Baptism can in fact be optional/not necessary for some -namely; those who receive BoD-  without incurring the attached anathema?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by columb - 01-03-2012, 01:01 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)