Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
#31
(01-01-2012, 01:56 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: 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

Yes. But my point was that the consent of theologians at any given point in time to something that is already condemned (Arianism or Modernism, for example) can not be considered to be an act of the Universal Magisterium because the Magisterium cannot teach what it has already condemned.
Reply
#32
(01-02-2012, 02:56 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-01-2012, 01:56 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: 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

Yes. But my point was that the consent of theologians at any given point in time to something that is already condemned (Arianism or Modernism, for example) can not be considered to be an act of the Universal Magisterium because the Magisterium cannot teach what it has already condemned.

True, although I would think that those who would attempt to teach heresy or error would therefore cease to be Catholics, as well as Catholic theologians (cf. 1917 CIC, can. 188.4).
Reply
#33
(01-01-2012, 06:43 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-01-2012, 03:38 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The syllogism argues that Catholics are bound to the de fide and theologically certain  doctrines taught by theologians and that theologians DO teach baptism of desire as being either de fide or theologically certain.  Fr. Cekada then asks which premise do pro-Feeneyites deny.

So we are bound to choose whether to be bound to the OM that teach BOD or the infallible teachings which declare the necessity of water?

Which is your choice?

This is a trick question for those who see that the infallible teachings allow baptism of desire, and the OM teaches the necessity of water with baptism of desire as an exception sometimes allowed by God.
Reply
#34
(01-02-2012, 12:36 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(01-02-2012, 02:56 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-01-2012, 01:56 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: 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

Yes. But my point was that the consent of theologians at any given point in time to something that is already condemned (Arianism or Modernism, for example) can not be considered to be an act of the Universal Magisterium because the Magisterium cannot teach what it has already condemned.

True, although I would think that those who would attempt to teach heresy or error would therefore cease to be Catholics, as well as Catholic theologians (cf. 1917 CIC, can. 188.4).

Well, of course. You of all people know that I agree with you (see my signature line).
Reply
#35
(01-02-2012, 09:40 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(01-01-2012, 06:43 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-01-2012, 03:38 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The syllogism argues that Catholics are bound to the de fide and theologically certain  doctrines taught by theologians and that theologians DO teach baptism of desire as being either de fide or theologically certain.  Fr. Cekada then asks which premise do pro-Feeneyites deny.

So we are bound to choose whether to be bound to the OM that teach BOD or the infallible teachings which declare the necessity of water?

Which is your choice?

This is a trick question for those who see that the infallible teachings allow baptism of desire, and the OM teaches the necessity of water with baptism of desire as an exception sometimes allowed by God.

Pardon my interruption (I haven't read every single one of Stubborn's posts), but does he acknowledge the facts that 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, though never presumptuously, places the soul in the state of sanctifying grace, [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 it does not apply to baptism of desire) of baptism?

These 5 facts reconcile the various teachings of the Church on this matter without any contradiction. Acknowledging them, I don't see how one can deny baptism of desire in good faith. As you know, the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism animated by perfect charity carries the theological note of sententia fidei proxima, which means one is not permitted to deny it without risking one's membership in the Church. This is very dangerous business.
Reply
#36
"It is for this reason that the Council of Trent teaches: "the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it". [15]
Reply
#37
(01-03-2012, 01:15 PM)Old Salt Wrote: "It is for this reason that the Council of Trent teaches: "the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it". [15]

Indeed!
Reply
#38
(01-03-2012, 01:15 PM)Old Salt Wrote: "It is for this reason that the Council of Trent teaches: "the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it". [15]

The Council of Trent doesn't teach that. Smile  If it did, then it would exclude the sacrament of Penance from restoring a person to the state of grace.  I would suggest that you read the Sixth Session of Trent again...particularly the area where it offers a description of the Justification of the impious (ch. IV)...clearly describing it NOT as the state of grace, but as a translation from one state to another.  It is obvious from what is written there that the translation can neither be begun nor finished without first the laver of regeneration or a dedication to have it.  There is further teaching on the restoration of the fallen in that Session of Trent as well, which allows a person once baptized who has lost his justice to regain it again through the sacrament of Penance.

-- Nicole
Reply
#39
Nicole
Yout avatar picture is tres jolie.
Is that you?
Reply
#40
Trent: “Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also THE SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION OF THE SAID SINS, AT LEAST IN DESIRE [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, REMITTED, EITHER BY THE SACRAMENT, OR BY THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism.” (Denz 807)



Trent: “The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein.” (Denz. 898)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)