Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
The point is BOD has no such consensus. It has FAR LESS support than the immaculate conception ever did, so why would anyone expect it to be so quickly condemned?

Bod has NO:

Liturgical tradition. Just the opposite, Catechumens were traditionally given a non-christian burial.

Unanimous support from the Fathers: Augustine asserts it once earlier in his career, then denies it later. St. Ambrose's eulogy on the Emperor Valentinian is vague and capable of an interpretation perfectly in harmony with his principle teaching on the issue. Those are the ONLY TWO saints that give ANYTHING close to a support of Baptism of Desire in the Fathers.

Dogmatic definitions. Just the opposite, we are Told Baptism of Water, and the Sanctifying blood of the redeemer, and the Sanctifying Power of the Holy Spirit are one and indivisible, and INSEPARABLE from each other IN A DOGMATIC LETTER. No Water, no blood and no spirit. Again, Trent says the words of our Lord are no metapphor in John 3:5, but are literal and apply ONLY to sacramental water baptism. How is this NOT the death knell for this faithless teaching?

Ordinary Universal Magisterial teaching. It is NOT PART of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. There is no unanimous consent among the fathers, none teach it as REVEALED BY GOD and binding on the faithful, even the post-scholastic Theologians do not agree as to the degree of theological certainty of the proposition, and certainly they do NOT unanimously teach it as a truth revealed by God binding on all the faithful.

Popes teaching it? None. Before you say Pius Xii 1949 letter, it was not ever formally registered as an act of the apostolic see and as such is not to be considered as such.

What possible hope can you have for a doctrine such as this?

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - by Gregory I - 02-02-2012, 02:06 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)