Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(01-03-2012, 02:12 AM)moneil Wrote: 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.

moneil, thanks for replying.

I will state the obvious yet again.

The catechism states perfectly (far as I can tell) the exact same de fide teaching as Trent - and the catechism (specifically the bolded red part) even goes into a bit more of an explanation as regards Trent's "Decree on the Sacraments" Canon IV as I will attempt to explain once more.

First, no where does the catechism OR TRENT say salvation will be granted - only that BOD would suffice for grace and righteousness. "Grace and righteousness" is not salvation. One needs to actually die for salvation.

Second, the catechism also makes repentance for past sins an additional requirement for an unbaptized person to be placed in the state of grace and righteousness. Not salvation. So per the catechism, one who is unbaptized must not only have the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism aka "desire", one must also repent for past sins. This is where the catechism explains more fully, yet still lacking imo, what Trent's or without the desire thereof, in canon IV means.

Third, "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters" - means what it says. Let's say that the adult breaks his leg and can't make it to his baptism till next week. He still needs to get baptized.
Let's say he is deathly ill for 6 weeks and dies before being baptized, we *can* say "he died unbaptized", we cannot say BOD saved him because we do not know that.
We *can* say that "if he desired baptism and repented etc and that God accepted this desire and repentance as being sincere enough, that he died in the state of grace and righteousness",  but we cannot say he went to heaven or hell because even Trent doesn't know or they would have declared it - no?

Both the catechism and the council are of the same mind here, you'll not find Trent rewarding salvation to one who died without the Sacrament and neither does the catechism - neither does Our Lord in John 3:3 for that matter. The "common consent" theory made that particular leap on their own.

Both Trent and the catechism stop short of rewarding heaven to one who is certainly not baptized sacramentally - feel free to show me where I am wrong. The reason they do not reward heaven to one who is not baptized sacramentally is not for us to declare, suffice to note that they simply never do that.

One thing seems sure, if Trent did reward salvation without the Sacrament, they'd be contradicting themselves in canon IV where they teach infallibly and anathematize whoever does not believe it, that The Sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation.

I am merely stating what the catechism is saying. People read it and seem to think it rewards salvation to someone who dies in a car accident on the way to Church to be baptized - it teaches nothing of the sort. That's an mis-interpretation that is widely held ie "common consent". But it says what it says even if no one believes it.

Rewarding salvation to one who has not received the Sacrament - but because he desired baptism, had an unforeseen accident on the way to Church and had perfect contrition going on --  is a leap in interpretation that you make on your own, it is not there, it is simply not there or in Trent's teachings.

Then there's the syllogisms........unbaptized justification + death = salvation

The above syllogism is the common consent of theologians. Fr. Cekada believes that common consent means BOD is an infallible teaching. Problem is, it is not the common consent of theologians that bind us, that is wrong - that is like saying if enough of us believe it and teach it, it will be true ipso facto regardless of what the pope declared to be de fide!

Rather, it seems only obvious that it is the "constant" consent of theologians, not the "common" consent of theologians to that which we are bound to believe. I already posted this error to Fr and he has not replied yet so I guess we'll see what he says about that.

As INPEFESS said, if we are bound by the common consent vs the constant consent of theologians, then we were and are bound to believe error as taught via the common consent as taught during the Arian Heresy when +99% of the Church believed the error that was being taught by 99% of the theologians - - -  and for that matter, we are bound to error now, during the NO heresy as the NO has the common consent of theologians, but it certainly does not have their constant consent. It simply is not the common consent we are bound to, it is the constant consent, ie from the time of the apostles.

FWIW, the constant consent of all catechisms and theologians remain to this day, even in the CCC  that the Sacrament of Baptism is an absolute necessity - *then* some (most?) of them go onto BOD - but it is the Sacrament that is both the common and constant consent of theologians, even among those theologians who teach in BOD.

Sorry for the long post, time constraints and all you know. Hopefully the above makes some sense. 
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by Stubborn - 01-03-2012, 05:50 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)