Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
(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 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

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - by yablabo - 01-17-2012, 06:59 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)