Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: (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?

Though this was directed to another poster if I may respond also:

First, have you read the several catechism citations that are in post #213?

The Church isn’t saying that the Sacrament of Baptism “can in fact be optional/not necessary for some..” .  The Church does teach that there are three forms of Baptism: water, of desire, of blood (the latter two being essentially the same in most respects).  The form of water is the normative form, and the form one is required to avail themselves of whenever possible.  This is held so strongly by the Church that the Roman Catechism (Catechism of the Council of Trent) says:
Quote:Those who may administer Baptism in case of necessity[b], but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the last place; [b]and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong[b]. This office extends in case of necessity, [b]even to Jews, infidels and heretics, provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. These things were established by many decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils; and the holy Council of Trent denounces anathema against those who dare to say, that Baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true Baptism.

This same catechism, after an admonishment that The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. goes on to state:
Quote:With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.

If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church.

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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages.

IF the Church held rigidly that unless one receives physical water baptism, with no other provision for when this is impossible, they can’t be saved, why would Trent teach that the baptism of adult catechumens should be delayed?  It is true that the delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, still, especially in those days, there were plenty of opportunities for one’s unplanned demise.  Are some suggesting that the compilers of this august catechism, including Saint Charles Borromeo, acted with extreme recklessness and imprudence in stating what had always been the Church’s practice, that baptism of adults is delayed until after a period of catechesis?

Part of this debate centers around the statement 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..  There are those here who have argued “well grace and righteousness, ah okay, but they didn’t receive water baptism, so they can’t be saved.”  Hmmm, so those with grace and righteousness go to hell?  Show me where the Church teaches that.

The bottom line being it appears to me (and to the vast majority of Catholics) that Trent, through the catechism it ordered to be produced, is speaking precisely of Baptism of Desire / Baptism of Blood in the above cited passage.  That is certainly how every major English language catechism in use until the turmoil of VII seems to understand it.  To say otherwise is to, among other things, accuse Saint Pius X of heresy, because he explicitly taught BOD /BOB in his catechism (again, see the citations in post #213).
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by moneil - 01-03-2012, 02:12 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)