Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
(01-26-2012, 04:53 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-26-2012, 04:09 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(01-26-2012, 03:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-26-2012, 12:01 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(01-26-2012, 02:38 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Hate monger? Fr. Feeney was devoted to our Lady at all times, and was reconciled to the church without giving up any of his views.

Are you aware that all the fathers of the church prior to St. Bernard of Clairveaux unanimously teach that Baptism is an ABSOLUTE and universal obligation and necessity, and that the unanimous teaching is that none can be saved without it? THis is easily seen from the first century up until the 12th century. It's unanimous.

The truth is the first thing out the window in any sort of discussion. 

I think some of the posters on this thread are more concerned with justifying their spiritual investments than searching for truth in communion...as reflected in the lack of willingness to examine the veracity and the logic behind their claims viz. "baptism of desire."  There is more interest in putting forth the notion that we must adhere to the theologians at all costs, to heck with what the Pope has defined or condemned in his infallible magisterium.

-- Nicole

Physician, heal thyself.  :eyeroll:

The point is, the Magisterium has not defined things the way you seem to think it has, and the universal ordinary testimony of the Church testifies to this, particularly in the documents of Trent.  That you are obstinate in your views is unfortunate.

So you say, but you will not provide proof of such.  You quote the likes of Ludwig Otto, not testimony of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

And on the subject of solemn judgments of the Roman Pontiffs:  Provide a single quotation from the Council of Trent that contains the term "baptismus flaminis."...or better yet...an explicit statement from Trent that "voto baptismi" is salvific.  If you say it's there, you must be able to provide evidence of such :)

-- Nicole

"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,- as being a translation [transformation], from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the State of Grace, and of the adoption of the Sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation [transformation], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire [in voto; votum Baptismi] thereof, as it is written - 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God' [John 3:5]" (Council of Trent, Session 6, Monday, January 13, 1547 A.D., Decree on Justification, Chapter IV)

You have been pointed here before, and how this has been interpreted by all the Doctors to mean Baptism of Desire.  Your continual refusal to read this in line with the Church is nothing other than rank Protestantism.  And believe me, I know Protestantism when I see it.

Oh please, Trent hardly teaches BOD here at all, allow me to demonstrate:

Trent is CLEARLY teaching you CANNOT be saved without baptism or its desire. If you break this into simple equivocal statements without injuring the text:

You CANNOT be saved without baptism, OR

You cannot be saved without the desire for baptism.

What it is saying is that you must have the necessary predispositions in order to be saved by baptism. This canon is answering the question

"Do all who are baptized receive the grace of the sacrament?"

No. Only those who are properly disposed receive the grace of the sacrament.

Very well, what are the proper dispositions?:

1. They must desire it.
2. They must have faith (Implicit in 1).
3. They must be living in charity.

If any of these dispositions are missing, they receive the sacramental character, but no grace. In fact, it is a mortal sin of sacrilege to be baptized for worldly reasons, such as status. The waters that would save in this case condemn.

I always thought the Catechism of Trent was the best interpreter of Trent:

Dispositions for Baptism

Intention

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none."

So all this canon is saying is that you must be baptized, and you must desire to be baptized. IN other words, you CANNOT attain justification without baptism and the proper disposition.

If you need more proof, I can give a more fuller answer using only the Council of Trents own quotes.

Now, as regard to the issue not being dogmatically settled, let's consider something:

When considering baptism, there are three elements that go hand in hand. The waters of baptism and the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit which cleanses by merit of the redeeming blood of Christ.

It is fair to say that baptism of desire is the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit which applies the merits of Christs blood apart from any physical water or sacramental matter.

But this idea is CONDEMNED dogmatically in the Dogmatic Letter of Pope St. Leo to Flavian of Constantinople! AKA the Tome of Leo DOGMATICALLY settles this idea:

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.


IN OTHER WORDS to maintain that you can have the Sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit apply the merits of the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ to an individual APART FROM THE WATERS OF BAPTISM goes counter to the Dogmatic teaching of Both the Pope, who authored this dogmatic Tome, AND the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon which unanimously approved it and set it forth as a bastion of Christian orthodoxy.

Just so you can see how serious this Tome is, let's consider:

This dogmatic letter of Pope Leo was accepted by the Council of
Chalcedon in its definition of Faith, which was approved authoritatively by Pope Leo
himself.

It was also approved by Pope Vigilius at
the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and by the dogmatic Third Council of
Constantinople (680‐681). It was also confirmed infallibly by a number of other popes,
including: Pope St. Gelasius, 495, Pope Pelagius II, 553, and Pope Benedict XIV,
nuper ad nos, 1743.

Pope St. Gelasius shows how no one can contradict, in the
slightest way, this dogmatic epistle of Pope St. Leo to Flavian.

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed
Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the
text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive
it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - by Gregory I - 01-27-2012, 02:16 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)