Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
(01-30-2012, 03:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:05 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Does God command impossibilities?

Yea or Nay?

Of course not that is why baptism or the desire thereof are necessary for salvation.  As the Church teaches.

Ah, but you do err my friend. God did not COMMAND baptism of desire. Theologians have SPECULATED that it MAY be a way to SUPPLY water baptism. But his speculation only began SERIOUSLY LATE in the churches history; in the Scholastic era AFTER the era of the fathers; which scholastics are BOUND to interpret sacred scripture ACCORDING to the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers.

Do you disagree?

Do the words of our Lord in John 3:5 constitute a Command?

Yay or Nay?
Reply
(01-30-2012, 07:13 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 03:20 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-29-2012, 11:51 PM)yablabo Wrote: St. Thomas Aquinas did not teach baptism of desire, as you've proven by quoting him.  He did teach three baptisms, one which was the Sacrament, two which were contained in the Sacrament (baptism of repentance and blood).

:LOL:

Okay, obviously you don't understand the words involved.  St. Thomas didn't teach Baptism of Desire, but he did.  Who's contradicting themselves now?  :LOL:

Firstly, I am a she...which is third person singular, not a third person plural (they or them).

Secondly, and I will repeat, St. Thomas taught, as you've proven by quoting him: the Sacrament of Baptism which contains two analogies that he also calls baptism: of repentance and of blood...NOT desire... :)

-- Nicole

First, http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a

Secondly, he calls it baptisimus flaminis, which i8s Baptism of Desire.  You can continue to live in denial, but reality is what is it.
Reply
(01-31-2012, 01:56 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: I think that instead of simply rejecting this off-the-cuff, you should try to understand it to see how it fits together. It is possible that you may still reject it, but when we last spoke you stated that your rejection of it was based upon its contradiction of Church teaching. I can only presume, then, that if there is shown to be no contradiction, you will accept it in good will. Understanding the theological nature of "necessity," which teaching preceded the decrees of the Council of Trent by centuries, is the first step to understanding what baptism of desire is and why God would choose to work outside of the visible sign of the sacrament at all.

INPEFESS, presumption can be a sin against hope, to mix meanings up a little bit.
Reply
(01-31-2012, 02:02 AM)Gregory I Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 03:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:05 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Does God command impossibilities?

Yea or Nay?

Of course not that is why baptism or the desire thereof are necessary for salvation.  As the Church teaches.

Ah, but you do err my friend. God did not COMMAND baptism of desire. Theologians have SPECULATED that it MAY be a way to SUPPLY water baptism. But his speculation only began SERIOUSLY LATE in the churches history; in the Scholastic era AFTER the era of the fathers; which scholastics are BOUND to interpret sacred scripture ACCORDING to the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers.

Do you disagree?

Do the words of our Lord in John 3:5 constitute a Command?

Yay or Nay?

It's not a yes or no question.  Distinctions must be made, and you are failing to do so.
Reply
INPEFESS can you show where it has be taught de fide that the necessity pertaining to Baptism (the sacrament) is that of relative necessity of precept?
I don't think that this debate would be taking place if this could be proved.  Contrary to this view it appears that in all the ex cathedra pronouncements concerning the sacrament of Baptism, it is the necessity of means that is being implied.
Reply
(01-31-2012, 03:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 02:02 AM)Gregory I Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 03:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:05 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Does God command impossibilities?

Yea or Nay?

Of course not that is why baptism or the desire thereof are necessary for salvation.  As the Church teaches.

Ah, but you do err my friend. God did not COMMAND baptism of desire. Theologians have SPECULATED that it MAY be a way to SUPPLY water baptism. But his speculation only began SERIOUSLY LATE in the churches history; in the Scholastic era AFTER the era of the fathers; which scholastics are BOUND to interpret sacred scripture ACCORDING to the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers.

Do you disagree?

Do the words of our Lord in John 3:5 constitute a Command?

Yay or Nay?

It's not a yes or no question.  Distinctions must be made, and you are failing to do so.

Then tell me:

If a person is Justified by BOD, in what sense do our Lord's words apply to Him? In a metaphorical sense?

Did our Lord issue a command in John 3:5 for those whom he meant it literally? But not for those who he foreknew would not receive it, and for whom he only meant the words metaphorically?
Reply
(01-31-2012, 08:43 PM)Gregory I Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 03:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 02:02 AM)Gregory I Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 03:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:05 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Does God command impossibilities?

Yea or Nay?

Of course not that is why baptism or the desire thereof are necessary for salvation.  As the Church teaches.

Ah, but you do err my friend. God did not COMMAND baptism of desire. Theologians have SPECULATED that it MAY be a way to SUPPLY water baptism. But his speculation only began SERIOUSLY LATE in the churches history; in the Scholastic era AFTER the era of the fathers; which scholastics are BOUND to interpret sacred scripture ACCORDING to the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers.

Do you disagree?

Do the words of our Lord in John 3:5 constitute a Command?

Yay or Nay?

It's not a yes or no question.  Distinctions must be made, and you are failing to do so.

Then tell me:

If a person is Justified by BOD, in what sense do our Lord's words apply to Him? In a metaphorical sense?

Did our Lord issue a command in John 3:5 for those whom he meant it literally? But not for those who he foreknew would not receive it, and for whom he only meant the words metaphorically?

:eyeroll:
Reply
(01-31-2012, 04:53 PM)columb Wrote: INPEFESS can you show where it has be taught de fide that the necessity pertaining to Baptism (the sacrament) is that of relative necessity of precept?
I don't think that this debate would be taking place if this could be proved.  Contrary to this view it appears that in all the ex cathedra pronouncements concerning the sacrament of Baptism, it is the necessity of means that is being implied.

A great many theologians hold it to be de fide. But the common consent of theologians hold it to be at least sententiae fidei proxima. One cannot deny a teaching held with that particular theological note and not jeopardize one's membership in the Church. 

One very common mistakes that Catholics make is to think that only must believe in the basic dogmas of the Church to be Catholic--that they can deny everything else without consequence if they so choose. That is absolutely false. One cannot pick and choose what one wants to believe if one is to be a professing Catholic. One must submit one's intellect to things one's intellect cannot understand.
Reply
(01-31-2012, 08:43 PM)Gregory I Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 03:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 02:02 AM)Gregory I Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 03:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:05 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Does God command impossibilities?

Yea or Nay?

Of course not that is why baptism or the desire thereof are necessary for salvation.  As the Church teaches.

Ah, but you do err my friend. God did not COMMAND baptism of desire. Theologians have SPECULATED that it MAY be a way to SUPPLY water baptism. But his speculation only began SERIOUSLY LATE in the churches history; in the Scholastic era AFTER the era of the fathers; which scholastics are BOUND to interpret sacred scripture ACCORDING to the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers.

Do you disagree?

Do the words of our Lord in John 3:5 constitute a Command?

Yay or Nay?

It's not a yes or no question.  Distinctions must be made, and you are failing to do so.

Then tell me:

If a person is Justified by BOD, in what sense do our Lord's words apply to Him? In a metaphorical sense?

Did our Lord issue a command in John 3:5 for those whom he meant it literally? But not for those who he foreknew would not receive it, and for whom he only meant the words metaphorically?

We are Catholics, not Protestants. We do not appeal to sola scriptura to prove our points. We appeal to the Scriptural meanings that only the magisterium of the Church has the authority to interpret.

But on that note, how would you respond to the command given by Our Lord in John 6:54? He even prefaces it with the words, "Amen, Amen, I say to you...," which the Church has always understood as Our Lord's most solemn means of teaching. Are you saying that it is heresy to think that baptized babies who have not yet consumed the Eucharist cannot have life in them? God set up the Church to tell us what it meant, so He did not spend hours qualifying all the theological nuances that He inspired the Church to teach. That is one of the many reasons we have the Church, which gave us the bible. It wasn't the other way around. Christ wasn't going to say, "Now when I say 'necessary,' you must understand the various types of necessity. There is metaphysical necessity, physical necessity, and moral necessity. These are then further divided into more subsections, such as necessity of means versus necessity of precept, and absolute necessity versus moral necessity. Let me tell you what they all mean and how they apply to every possible situation..."

No, that is what the Church is for. A word that is most closely translated as "necessary" in the English language is used by Our Lord to be unpacked by the theologians He would later inspire to do so.

The Church is the only authority to which we may appeal to know the meanings of Scripture. If we depart from what She has already interpreted (whether by the common consent of those charged with the authority to teach on Her behalf, by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, or by the Extraordinary Magisterium itself) concerning the meanings of Scripture we become like Protestants picking and choosing what we want to believe and sifting through the magisterium.
Reply
(01-31-2012, 08:43 PM)Gregory I Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 03:50 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 02:02 AM)Gregory I Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 03:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:05 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Does God command impossibilities?

Yea or Nay?

Of course not that is why baptism or the desire thereof are necessary for salvation.  As the Church teaches.

Ah, but you do err my friend. God did not COMMAND baptism of desire. Theologians have SPECULATED that it MAY be a way to SUPPLY water baptism. But his speculation only began SERIOUSLY LATE in the churches history; in the Scholastic era AFTER the era of the fathers; which scholastics are BOUND to interpret sacred scripture ACCORDING to the UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Fathers.

Do you disagree?

Do the words of our Lord in John 3:5 constitute a Command?

Yay or Nay?

It's not a yes or no question.  Distinctions must be made, and you are failing to do so.

Then tell me:

If a person is Justified by BOD, in what sense do our Lord's words apply to Him? In a metaphorical sense?

Did our Lord issue a command in John 3:5 for those whom he meant it literally? But not for those who he foreknew would not receive it, and for whom he only meant the words metaphorically?

According to your reasoning, baptized babies who die before eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our Lord should go to Hell.  There are absolutely no exceptions, right?  Because our Lord said, "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6:54).

:LOL:  I see that INPEFESS has beaten me to the punch!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)