Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(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 dispute that the desire for Baptism has a salvific efficacy if remaining unfulfilled by means of the actual reception of the sacrament itself. The desire for Baptism can arise from the correct employment of human faith and reason alone; it does not necessarily require supernatural faith in order to have the desire to receive sacramental Baptism.  I do indeed acknowledge in point [1] that the desire for Baptism is not a sacrament and therefore there remains only one sacrament of Baptism.

Point [2] is that which is commonly held to be the disposition necessary for BoD to be salvific. How one receives the pre-baptismal grace to have supernatural charity (perfect love of God) while still outside the Church has not been explained; (sacramental Baptism being the means by which a soul is incorporated into the Church outside of which no one at all can be saved.)

Point [3] seems to be putting the horse before the cart. Supernatural love of God places a soul in the state of sanctifying grace but one must first receive sanctifying grace in order to be capable of possessing supernatural charity. The unbaptized man is yet a natural man and requires the laver of regeneration in order to make him a supernatural man,; one (so to speak) who has died with Christ in Baptism and has put on the new man.

Point [4]. Total agreement..

Point [5].  I'm aware of the different types of necessity but it has not been shown that necessity of precept is the necessity proper to the sacrament of Baptism. On the contrary, It has been dogmatically defined that the necessity of means is that necessity which is proper to sacramental Baptism.
It's plain to see how the necessity of means does not apply to various other sacraments, e.g, the sacrament of penance which is applicable to those souls only who have already received the sacrament of Baptism and have since fallen into mortal sin.
Indeed, the necessity of water does not apply to BoD, this is why I say that it is not salvific, for the Church affirms that, "Unless a man be born again of water etc.." he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
It's worth noting that many Doctors and Fathers equate "the kingdom of God" with the Roman Catholic Church.

I may in fact be alone on the issue of pre-baptismal justification but I don't find it being taught de fide anywhere. That is why I don't consider myself a true Feeneyite and can see the contradiction you mention in another post where some place between heaven and hell must be invented to house those who die justified but without Baptism.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by columb - 01-03-2012, 10:56 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)