Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
#41
(01-08-2012, 11:53 PM)Old Salt Wrote: Nicole
Yout avatar picture is tres jolie.
Is that you?

The photo is of me, yes.  Thanks for the compliment.

-- Nicole
Reply
#42
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18).  Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith.  Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?  It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.  And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.  For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.  And the three are one.  (1 Jn. 5:4-8)  IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.  THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.  NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
Reply
#43
Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”



     Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”!  Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church: baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!
Reply
#44
(01-17-2012, 09:38 AM)Spencer Wrote: Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”



     Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”!  Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church: baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!

Read the entry in Ott right below the one you just quoted, Nimrod.
Reply
#45
(01-17-2012, 04:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 09:38 AM)Spencer Wrote: Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”



    Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”!  Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church: baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!

Read the entry in Ott right below the one you just quoted, Nimrod.

Fortunately Ott's work isn't part of what we must believe with divine and Catholic faith, much less by religious assent...so no surprise if it contradicts itself.  However, we do have the Councils of Florence and Trent which do cover the absolute necessity of Baptismus fluminis for the possibility of one to enter into the beatific vision after his death...of course these teachings must be believed by divine and Catholic faith...Trent even imposes the pain of anathema on those who say otherwise in regard to the necessity of Baptism.

-- Nicole
Reply
#46
(01-17-2012, 05:38 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 04:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 09:38 AM)Spencer Wrote: Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”



     Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”!  Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church: baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!

Read the entry in Ott right below the one you just quoted, Nimrod.

Fortunately Ott's work isn't part of what we must believe with divine and Catholic faith, much less by religious assent...so no surprise if it contradicts itself.  However, we do have the Councils of Florence and Trent which do cover the absolute necessity of Baptismus fluminis for the possibility of one to enter into the beatific vision after his death...of course these teachings must be believed by divine and Catholic faith...Trent even imposes the pain of anathema on those who say otherwise in regard to the necessity of Baptism.

-- Nicole

But the good Father's entire point is that BoD does, in fact, fall under the umbrella of what Catholics must assent to on pain of mortal sin, and he is right.  This is the standard from which Manuals such as Ott's are operating.  To deny BoD is to pick and choose from the faith, to be a heretic (which means a chooser) rather than a Catholic (which means according to the whole, including both the necessity of water baptism and the possibility of BoD).  Both/and, not either/or.  If Ott is wrong on this, then Catholicism is a joke.
Reply
#47
(01-17-2012, 05:56 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 05:38 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 04:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 09:38 AM)Spencer Wrote: Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”



    Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”!  Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church: baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!

Read the entry in Ott right below the one you just quoted, Nimrod.

Fortunately Ott's work isn't part of what we must believe with divine and Catholic faith, much less by religious assent...so no surprise if it contradicts itself.  However, we do have the Councils of Florence and Trent which do cover the absolute necessity of Baptismus fluminis for the possibility of one to enter into the beatific vision after his death...of course these teachings must be believed by divine and Catholic faith...Trent even imposes the pain of anathema on those who say otherwise in regard to the necessity of Baptism.

-- Nicole

But the good Father's entire point is that BoD does, in fact, fall under the umbrella of what Catholics must assent to on pain of mortal sin, and he is right.  This is the standard from which Manuals such as Ott's are operating.  To deny BoD is to pick and choose from the faith, to be a heretic (which means a chooser) rather than a Catholic (which means according to the whole, including both the necessity of water baptism and the possibility of BoD).  Both/and, not either/or.  If Ott is wrong on this, then Catholicism is a joke.
Correct.
That is the Catholic response.
Reply
#48
(01-17-2012, 05:56 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 05:38 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 04:09 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 09:38 AM)Spencer Wrote: Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”



     Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”!  Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church: baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!

Read the entry in Ott right below the one you just quoted, Nimrod.

Fortunately Ott's work isn't part of what we must believe with divine and Catholic faith, much less by religious assent...so no surprise if it contradicts itself.  However, we do have the Councils of Florence and Trent which do cover the absolute necessity of Baptismus fluminis for the possibility of one to enter into the beatific vision after his death...of course these teachings must be believed by divine and Catholic faith...Trent even imposes the pain of anathema on those who say otherwise in regard to the necessity of Baptism.

-- Nicole

But the good Father's entire point is that BoD does, in fact, fall under the umbrella of what Catholics must assent to on pain of mortal sin, and he is right.  This is the standard from which Manuals such as Ott's are operating.  To deny BoD is to pick and choose from the faith, to be a heretic (which means a chooser) rather than a Catholic (which means according to the whole, including both the necessity of water baptism and the possibility of BoD).  Both/and, not either/or.  If Ott is wrong on this, then Catholicism is a joke.

Your own words are contradictory on this issue.  If we are to believe the theologians under pain of mortal sin, it does not make us heretics to disbelieve them...  To be an heretic one must either deny or doubt in an obstinate fashion what must be believed by divine and Catholic faith (after Baptism, of course).  This means that articles of divine and Catholic faith are bound upon us under pain of major excommunication...not minor excommunication as mortal sin accomplishes. 

However, it is totally irrational to interpret the infallible by the fallible...which makes the words of the theologians no more than guides in this matter to a better understanding, but not binding upon us beyond pious assent due to their assumed credibility.  When it happens that theologians present notions contradicting or contrary to what we must believe by divine and Catholic faith, such as the necessity of Baptism, then we are bound to reject what they say on that matter totally and utterly.

If you don't believe me, fine.  You don't have to believe me.  Though, if you claim the name Catholic, then you must believe and assent to what Christ and His Magisterium teach...and the theologians are not part of that Magisterium.

-- Nicole
Reply
#49
(01-17-2012, 06:59 PM)yablabo Wrote: Your own words are contradictory on this issue.  If we are to believe the theologians under pain of mortal sin, it does not make us heretics to disbelieve them...  To be an heretic one must either deny or doubt in an obstinate fashion what must be believed by divine and Catholic faith (after Baptism, of course).  This means that articles of divine and Catholic faith are bound upon us under pain of major excommunication...not minor excommunication as mortal sin accomplishes. 

However, it is totally irrational to interpret the infallible by the fallible...which makes the words of the theologians no more than guides in this matter to a better understanding, but not binding upon us beyond pious assent due to their assumed credibility.  When it happens that theologians present notions contradicting or contrary to what we must believe by divine and Catholic faith, such as the necessity of Baptism, then we are bound to reject what they say on that matter totally and utterly.

If you don't believe me, fine.  You don't have to believe me.  Though, if you claim the name Catholic, then you must believe and assent to what Christ and His Magisterium teach...and the theologians are not part of that Magisterium.

-- Nicole

*sigh*

Father Cekada is right.  If you insist on seeing contradictions where there are none, there is no point to speaking with you.  The constant teaching of the Faith is that water Baptism is necessary, but that Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire can substitute by divine economy.  If you refuse to hear the teaching of the Church on this, good luck.
Reply
#50
(01-17-2012, 07:05 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-17-2012, 06:59 PM)yablabo Wrote: Your own words are contradictory on this issue.  If we are to believe the theologians under pain of mortal sin, it does not make us heretics to disbelieve them...  To be an heretic one must either deny or doubt in an obstinate fashion what must be believed by divine and Catholic faith (after Baptism, of course).  This means that articles of divine and Catholic faith are bound upon us under pain of major excommunication...not minor excommunication as mortal sin accomplishes. 

However, it is totally irrational to interpret the infallible by the fallible...which makes the words of the theologians no more than guides in this matter to a better understanding, but not binding upon us beyond pious assent due to their assumed credibility.  When it happens that theologians present notions contradicting or contrary to what we must believe by divine and Catholic faith, such as the necessity of Baptism, then we are bound to reject what they say on that matter totally and utterly.

If you don't believe me, fine.  You don't have to believe me.  Though, if you claim the name Catholic, then you must believe and assent to what Christ and His Magisterium teach...and the theologians are not part of that Magisterium.

-- Nicole

*sigh*

Father Cekada is right.  If you insist on seeing contradictions where there are none, there is no point to speaking with you.  The constant teaching of the Faith is that water Baptism is necessary, but that Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire can substitute by divine economy.  If you refuse to hear the teaching of the Church on this, good luck.

I know you will see no further use in discussing this with me, but I do find it compelling to point out more contradiction in your subsequent post:

The constant teaching of the Faith is that water Baptism is necessary, you say...

Then, you contradict that saying "water Baptism" is not necessary: "baptism of blood" or "baptism of desire" can substitute for "water Baptism" by divine economy...

This is hardly convincing...as contradiction cannot be held rationally.  Either something is necessary, or it is not.  By their infallible Magisterium, Our Lord and the Roman Pontiffs have laid out the teaching clearly on Holy Baptism: that it is necessary [period].  If you were to define the word necessary, you would see that it does not mean, as convention defines it, merely that which is beneficial.  Necessary means one of two things: that a travel along a specific path cannot be either begun or finished without this, or that once travel along a path to a specific end has begun unless this particular condition is met the end cannot be reached. 

Applying this notion of "necessary" to the application of Baptism, one can see that if the Church says it is necessary, that either the journey to salvation cannot be begun or finished without it...or that once the path is entered, journey to salvation cannot be finished without it.

To say that "desire" or action of grace on God's part is enough is a "Wickliff-ite" error. 

-- Nicole
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)