Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(01-14-2012, 06:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 07:49 AM)Stubborn Wrote: but that they [theologians] are likewise "bound in conscience to submit themselves both to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those points of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of Catholics, are held as theological truths and conclusions of such certainty that the opinions opposed to these points of doctrine, though they cannot be termed heretical, nevertheless deserve some other theological censure."

And it is the latter part of what you quote that cooks the Feeneyite goose, because Catholic theologians attest that baptism of desire was in fact, taught with "common and constant consent." (The only opponents to the doctrine were heretics mentioned by St. Bernard of Clarivaux in the 12th century.)

Moreover, by classifying baptism of desire as either "certain," "common teaching," "Catholic doctrine," "constant," "fidei proxima," " pertaining to faith," etc. (as I demonstrate they do), the theologians thereby placed it in a category that makes opinions that oppose it "deserv[ing] of some other theological censure," just as Pius IX lays down in what you quote.

So, you're still in the trap.

According to your own rules, what trap is it that I am in? The Catechism of Trent says I am correct - why do you claim I am in a trap?

Even the Catechism of Trent teaches........ Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved...........This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;' and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.

So you see, not only has Sacramental Baptism been defined infallibly, it also enjoys the universal, constant and common consent of the whole Church - If that is the trap I'm in, then I'm in good company wouldn't you agree?

*You* Father, can claim BOD is whatever you want to claim it is, but unlike Sacramental Baptism, no one is bound to a belief in salvation via BOD because it is not a constant teaching.......perhaps according to your own principles, BOD may or may not be termed heretical, nevertheless, it deserve some other theological censure - according to your principles.

You have not even attempted to answer my query in the OP, you create two other threads that helps add to the confusion, your "principles" are *your principles* - they are not de fide, you've accomplished knocking Fr. Feeney - probably believe him to be a heretic because he taught the only true universal, constant and common teaching on Baptism and you continue to avoid facing the fact that your *rules* need to be revised or redone all together as I've  pointed out just a few of the most obvious errors in your principles.

According to your principles, all Catholics would always be bound to follow what the majority of “Catholic” theologians say, no matter how heretical it is - why don't you admit this instead of inserting your own proviso?


(01-14-2012, 06:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: And the only guys I want to see on the 19th hole are those who play by the rules of the PGA (Pius IX Golf Association) and don't take mulligans!

Yes, you're right. Until you revise your rules to reflect the truth, it's probably best to drink by yourself Father - or with other golfers.

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada - by Stubborn - 01-14-2012, 11:08 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)