Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(01-03-2012, 05:57 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-03-2012, 01:52 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: 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.


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?

Please pardon my interruption, but do you acknowledge the facts that the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism [1] is not a sacrament (therefore, there is still only one sacrament of baptism), [2] that it absolutely must be animated by perfect love for God in order to be efficacious, [3] that the latter automatically places the soul in the state of sanctifying grace, though there is no way for a soul to be certain if or when this has happened, [4] that all souls who die in the state of sanctifying grace are infallibly saved, and [5] that there are different types of necessity* as recognized by theologians long before Trent's canon concerning the sacrament (NOTE: meaning that the necessity of water for baptism does not apply to baptism of desire) of baptism?

These 5 facts and the logical conclusions that follow therefrom reconcile the various teachings of the Church on this matter without any contradiction.

* For example:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Necessity Wrote:Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

I believe all five INPEFESS, but there is still no constant teaching of the Church that rewards salvation to one who dies without the Sacrament.

See my post previous to this one please.

If you accept 3 and 4, then how does that work in the absence of the sacrament of baptism? There are no conditions for 3 and 4. The Church doesn't say: 'One who makes a perfect act of love for God is justified . . . only if he has first been baptized.' It says that anyone who makes a perfect act of love for God is justified. The Church goes on to teach that all who die in this state of justification are infallibly saved. It doesn't qualify it by saying: 'Only if they have first received the sacrament of baptism.' It says [1] that a person who makes a perfect act of love for God is justified, and [2] that all who die in the state of justification are infallibly saved.

This doesn't make baptism of water not necessary for salvation. It is necessary insofar as one has the opportunity to receive it. One may not opt out of it; nor can one choose to substitute it with something else. In this way, the theologians, including the Angelic Doctor himself, teach that it is a relative necessity but is simply said to be "necessary" by the canon of Trent. Elsewhere, Trent declared "or the desire thereof" concerning the necessity of the sacrament of baptism. This means that, unless we want to claim that their were internal contradictions within the Council of Trent itself, the canon must have been talking about a relative necessity. This is the interpretation of the common consent of the theologians charged with teaching on the Church's behalf.

The only way to resolve the problem presented in paragraph 1 is to make an exception to points 3 and 4, which means that in rigorously conforming to one dogma under a pretense of refusing to acknowledge what is mistakenly understood to be an exception to the teaching, those who deny the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism must make exceptions to the doctrine of justification. As I have pointed out, this was the problem with Fr. Feeney because in the name of refusing to compromise one teaching he simply compromised another. In his own book, the conclusion of this forced him to literally invent a third place in addition to Heaven and Hell where souls justified by baptism of desire yet devoid of the sacrament of baptism go. This nonsense is the reason that Catholics are obliged to conform to the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium and not try to blaze their own theological trails through the underbrush.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by INPEFESS - 01-03-2012, 07:08 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)