Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
#11
(12-31-2011, 07:29 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:23 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I read your link Father and I completely agree with the rules of the road as you wrote them -  (assuming those are the rules you are talking about).

Here it comes:

Bring it.

Just remember, I am not out to be right. I am seeking the truth and am ready to be absolutely wrong and will happily admit it if/when that happens.

In the other thread, I could not even get you or any BOD supporters to admit the obvious. At least this thread my first question was answered clearly.

At any rate, hopefully Father has a little time he can devote to this thread. Thanks in advance Father!
Reply
#12
(12-31-2011, 07:33 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:24 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 05:05 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 04:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: 1. General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Quote:Does any member of the Feeney faction here deny #1?

Not to be glib, but don't most traditionalists deny #1?  Most traditionalists believe that the Church hierarchy, as a whole, can teach error.  Once you accept this aren't you basically free to reject any Church teaching you like?  Doesn't this debate over BoD really show an underlying problem with the way most traditionalists approach theology in that they often skirt near Protestantism in their view of authority and the Church?  Most traditionalists ignore this point you keep making over and over, because they just don't accept it. 

I would affirm that the unanimous teaching of the Church's hierarchy as a whole--i.e., the ordinary and universal magisterium--is infallible; however, I would deny that a consensus of theologians is representative of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

I agree with you.

No, you don't. I'm not a Feenyist.

I accept "baptism" of desire, as taught by the Council of Trent.

Feel free to enlighten us in the other thread where Trent taught BOD. amazing.
Reply
#13
(12-31-2011, 07:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Just remember, I am not out to be right. I am seeking the truth and am ready to be absolutely wrong and will happily admit it if/when that happens.

In the other thread, I could not even get you or any BOD supporters to admit the obvious. At least this thread my first question was answered clearly.

I freely confess my inabilities. As for this thread, just remember what you said which I bolded. I already see you starting to inch away from that commitment, i.e., slip out of the noose. I wish you well in the debate.
Reply
#14
(12-31-2011, 07:43 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 07:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Just remember, I am not out to be right. I am seeking the truth and am ready to be absolutely wrong and will happily admit it if/when that happens.

In the other thread, I could not even get you or any BOD supporters to admit the obvious. At least this thread my first question was answered clearly.

I freely confess my inabilities. As for this thread, just remember what you said which I bolded. I already see you starting to inch away from that commitment, i.e., slip out of the noose. I wish you well in the debate.

Don't worry - regardless of how I sound to you in print, I seek the truth and could care less about me being wrong - if you knew me in real life, you'd know that's a fact. I've been wrong a bazillion times in my life - and a bazillion times I strive to correct myself and will do the same for bazillion and one if that's the case - but I will not bend unless I am convinced. I'm not so quick to just say, "ok, there's no contradiction" - when there clearly is.
Reply
#15
moved to the other thread.
Reply
#16
Stubborn, do you accept Fathers syllogism, including his conclusion?  If no, then object to the issues in the syllogism.  If yes, then thanks be to God.
Reply
#17
(12-31-2011, 05:05 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 04:42 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: 1. General Principle from Pius IX: All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or as theologically certain.

Quote:Does any member of the Feeney faction here deny #1?

Not to be glib, but don't most traditionalists deny #1?  Most traditionalists believe that the Church hierarchy, as a whole, can teach error.  Once you accept this aren't you basically free to reject any Church teaching you like?  Doesn't this debate over BoD really show an underlying problem with the way most traditionalists approach theology in that they often skirt near Protestantism in their view of authority and the Church?  Most traditionalists ignore this point you keep making over and over, because they just don't accept it. 

The premise at work here is that the magisterium can't contradict itself. The adherence to teachings held by the common consent of Catholic theologians as de fide or Catholic doctrine, or held as theologically certain, is necessary when that teaching does not contradict the previous declarations of the magisterium (such as, for example, the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism animated by perfect charity). However, when a teaching held by the common consent of theologians is a direct contradiction of the previous declarations of the magisterium, a Catholic cannot, in good conscience adhere to it (such as, for example, during the Arian heresy).
Reply
#18
(12-31-2011, 09:51 PM)jordanawef Wrote: Stubborn, do you accept Fathers syllogism, including his conclusion?  If no, then object to the issues in the syllogism.  If yes, then thanks be to God.

The syllogism makes perfect sense so long as it agrees with defined teaching - or is that wrong thinking because even though to me, it seems obvious, the reality is that such a thing is not possible?
Does Trent and decrees from Councils owe obedience to the OM or is it the other way around - or are they both equal in authority?
 
Imo, there are plenty of syllogisms that can be applied to BOD that negate the one provided in the link.

For example,
Our Lords teachings + Trent's teachings = water is a necessity = harmony.
BOD + OM teaching water unnecessary = harmony
Water necessary  + water unnecessary = contradiction.

The syllogisms could continue on - today we celebrate the Circumcision of Our Lord, were any OT males saved if they were not circumcised?
St. Joseph certainly died justified, why did he not go straight to heaven?
Why did even he have to wait in "hell" until Our Lord's Ascension before he, dying justified as the head of the holy Family, could go to heaven?
He died in the state of grace and righteousness - no?

Our Lord Himself was circumcised because of the Law, not because He needed to be circumcised. IOW, wasn't the specific reason He was circumcised was to serve as an example, to show everyone is bound by God's Law?
If not, then why did He do it?
Same goes for His Baptism. One could make a syllogism from this as well - but it would result in the necessity of following the Law after Christ's own example - or no? If yes, then it is another example that serves to show that it is the Sacrament we must each receive.

Otherwise, BOD is a completely different baptism that still erases Original Sin - that should not be called "baptism" far as I can see from my arm chair theological position.


Reply
#19
Stubborn,
Your example of St. Joseph's death doesn't work because, like the Holy Innocents and St. Dismas, he died before Christ did and so had to wait for Him to open the gates of Heaven, much like the Holy Innocents and St. Dismas died before the Great Commission (around the time when Baptism became necessary for salvation) and so are bad proofs for baptism of desire.

INPEFESS,
It's my understanding that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is infallible (see Vatican I), and included in its expression is the common and constant consent of theologians when they teach doctrines to be de fide or theologically certain (see Pope Pius IX, Tanquerey and Van Noort).  Opposing such doctrines is sinful.

See Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (Denz. 1683-84): http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208clas.asp
http://sedevacantist.com/van_noort_infallibility.html
Reply
#20
(01-01-2012, 01:56 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: It's my understanding that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is infallible (see Vatican I), and included in its expression is the common and constant consent of theologians when they teach doctrines to be de fide or theologically certain (see Tanquerey and Van Noort).  Opposing such doctrines is sinful.

Such as Vatican II and the magisterium of its popes and theologians?

Almost all of the Church today, except for a very reduced number of trads, believes in the new teachings.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)