I disagree (vehemently) w/ St Augustine.. so call me Heretic or whatever
#91
(05-27-2018, 04:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: Just to point it out to you, the Fourth Baptism, which Our Lord himself underwent, came after he received "the perfect baptism" in the Jordan River.  Hence, this cannot be used as a proof that baptism of blood suffices for salvation prior to receiving the sacrament of Holy Baptism.  Extrapolating from this context does not allow one to conclude that the Fifth Baptism can stand alone, either, prior to receiving the sacrament.  Conclusion: the quotation does not prove what you claim.

Our Lord did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, but the Baptism of John, which was not a Sacrament, nor salvific, nor did it work ex opere operato. So to suggest that this "fourth Baptism" only comes after Sacramental Baptism, is a non sequitur. That did not happen in Our Lord's case.

(05-27-2018, 04:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: If you continue further in St. Gregory's oration, you'll see that he attributes the Fifth Baptism (obviously after he's already received "the perfect baptism")  to himself in his infirmity as a human person...further indicating that he is not implying in any way that this Fifth Baptism has salvific effect prior to the Sacrament of Baptism.

The text is not meant to be a proof absent other evidence, but to demonstrate that St. Gregory is not explicitly denying Baptism of Desire in Oration XL. He clearly means "Baptism" in a much wider sense than simply the Sacrament.

(05-27-2018, 04:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: Also, simply because I believe that you are in error does not embolden me to find the name of some scoundrel and attribute that name to your position.  You believe you have the liberty to believe in this speculation regarding baptism of desire and baptism of blood.  I don't, that is all.  Rather than being contentious, let's be honest and respectful.  Peter Abelard is a valid example of a catholic theologian.  His dissent by definition breaks a consensus of theologians.  This does not prove anything, though.

I'm not sure what you mean here. While I am not saying Abelard is a heretic, his sordid history certainly soils the validity of theology. It does not make everything he wrote wrong, just like in the case of Origen, but certainly he can't be cited as a stand-alone figure on which to hang one's hat.

No one is trying to be contentious here, certainly not I. If you look at my history here you will find that I'm reasonably typically dispassionate in such arguments. Interested in them, ready to enter swinging, but happy to discuss with those who are serious and willing to discuss.

My issue, however, is that the vast majority of theology and the Magisterium favors Baptism of Desire. I find it incredible (in the proper sense of that word), that Catholics would think to challenge a doctrine which can be consistently linked to a continual line of theologians, Popes and even Fathers of the Church.

I appreciate that you think I (and others) are in error, but I think, quite frankly, that the burden of proof is on you, not me, since I am defending what you can find in every Catechism back to Trent, a dozen Magisterial pronouncements, every major theologian, and many of the Fathers.

That said, you will not find me looking to be lacking in civility in such discussions, but don't expect kid gloves either.

(05-27-2018, 04:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: Dogma is not proven by the consensus of theologians.  Instead, "by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium." (Vatican Council I).

Baptism of desire and baptism of blood simply do not fall under that umbrella.  It is speculation.  I don't call you a heretic for concurring with the speculation.  A person can only be a heretic by pertinaciously/obstinately denying dogma.

Read any basic theology textbook, even a basic Apologetics textbook and you will find there listed the theological notes.

While certain teaching are not "De Fide" one of the highest degrees of certitude when it comes to truths which are not directly revealed is the Sententia Communis—the common opinion of theologians.

Baptism of Desire is taught by the Church's Magisterium. It is taught by the common opinion of theologians, meaning it is at least Catholic Doctrine. Fr Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, p. 356) even says it is Proxima Fide, while, as mentioned before, St. Alphonsus held it as De Fide.

While each differs on precisely what degree of certitude exists, no major certainly orthodox theologian approved by the Church claims that this is mere speculation.

(05-27-2018, 04:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: Your response to the third question also demonstrates what I believe is a philosophical error.  If you read the canons on baptism in the seventh session of the Council of Trent, the only context provided is "the most holy Sacraments of the Church."  Since that is the context, Can.s 2 and 5 can only be understood as the sacrament.  No extension or change in supposition is admitted, as none is introduced.  If there is a mental reservation in the 5th canon, it is reserved to the unknown.  There is no certainty to be gained from what you can't gather via your senses...and you can't interpret the highest authority by the lesser or that which is lacking in authority.

The proof that there is a change in extension or supposition can come about either by reading the context or by looking at the interpretation that the Magisterium and theologians have given.

When in Trent (VI, cap. 4; Dz 796/DS 1524) we read "sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto" or later in Canon 4 (De sac. in gen., Dz 847/DS 1604) "sine eis aut eorum voto" and yet in the next section of canons (De sac. Bapt., Dz 861/DS 1618) condemns those who say that Baptism is not necessary, clearly the internal contexts indicates that the council fathers are speaking about more than just the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, but of the Sacrament itself and its effects.

Couple that with theologians who were contemporaries of Trent or came after (like St. Alphonsus) one sees that everyone interepreted Trent to be teaching Baptism of Desire which means that indeed, the extension must be greater.

We could posit a change in supposition if we speak of necessity. The Sacrament is necessary by a necessity of means admitting of no exceptions. Te reception by an individual is by necessity of means (some would argue of precept, but I don't think this is a good position from which to argue), but admitting that exceptionally that the salvific effects (but not all effect) can be exceptionally had by actual graces and God's infusion of Sanctifying Grace extraordinarily.
Reply
#92
(05-27-2018, 05:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-27-2018, 04:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: Just to point it out to you, the Fourth Baptism, which Our Lord himself underwent, came after he received "the perfect baptism" in the Jordan River.  Hence, this cannot be used as a proof that baptism of blood suffices for salvation prior to receiving the sacrament of Holy Baptism.  Extrapolating from this context does not allow one to conclude that the Fifth Baptism can stand alone, either, prior to receiving the sacrament.  Conclusion: the quotation does not prove what you claim.

Our Lord did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, but the Baptism of John, which was not a Sacrament, nor salvific, nor did it work ex opere operato. So to suggest that this "fourth Baptism" only comes after Sacramental Baptism, is a non sequitur. That did not happen in Our Lord's case.

As enjoyable as this discussion is, we aren't going to go beyond the canons.
Reply
#93
(05-27-2018, 05:27 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(05-27-2018, 05:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-27-2018, 04:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: Just to point it out to you, the Fourth Baptism, which Our Lord himself underwent, came after he received "the perfect baptism" in the Jordan River.  Hence, this cannot be used as a proof that baptism of blood suffices for salvation prior to receiving the sacrament of Holy Baptism.  Extrapolating from this context does not allow one to conclude that the Fifth Baptism can stand alone, either, prior to receiving the sacrament.  Conclusion: the quotation does not prove what you claim.

Our Lord did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, but the Baptism of John, which was not a Sacrament, nor salvific, nor did it work ex opere operato. So to suggest that this "fourth Baptism" only comes after Sacramental Baptism, is a non sequitur. That did not happen in Our Lord's case.

As enjoyable as this discussion is, we aren't going to go beyond the canons.

I'm sorry, Trent teaches Baptism of Desire. Full stop.

The text itself demonstrates this, and the consensus of post-Tridentine theologians alone (without reference to what preceeds them, which still supports it), demonstrates that this is the correct interpretation of any ambiguity in "voto".

One cannot privately interpret Trent any more than one can privately interpret Scripture. If there is a question, we have to look at what the post-Tridentine Magisterium and theologians taught, just as when a passage in Scripture is not clear or in debate, we have to look at the Fathers, Magisterium and commentaries.

If you don't wish to discuss the matter, that's fine, I'm happy to drop it, but do want to reassure you that I have no interest in being uncivil, and am happy to discuss.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Dominicus, In His Love
Reply
#94
(05-27-2018, 08:34 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-27-2018, 05:27 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(05-27-2018, 05:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-27-2018, 04:16 PM)yablabo Wrote: Just to point it out to you, the Fourth Baptism, which Our Lord himself underwent, came after he received "the perfect baptism" in the Jordan River.  Hence, this cannot be used as a proof that baptism of blood suffices for salvation prior to receiving the sacrament of Holy Baptism.  Extrapolating from this context does not allow one to conclude that the Fifth Baptism can stand alone, either, prior to receiving the sacrament.  Conclusion: the quotation does not prove what you claim.

Our Lord did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, but the Baptism of John, which was not a Sacrament, nor salvific, nor did it work ex opere operato. So to suggest that this "fourth Baptism" only comes after Sacramental Baptism, is a non sequitur. That did not happen in Our Lord's case.

As enjoyable as this discussion is, we aren't going to go beyond the canons.

I'm sorry, Trent teaches Baptism of Desire. Full stop.

The text itself demonstrates this, and the consensus of post-Tridentine theologians alone (without reference to what preceeds them, which still supports it), demonstrates that this is the correct interpretation of any ambiguity in "voto".

One cannot privately interpret Trent any more than one can privately interpret Scripture. If there is a question, we have to look at what the post-Tridentine Magisterium and theologians taught, just as when a passage in Scripture is not clear or in debate, we have to look at the Fathers, Magisterium and commentaries.

If you don't wish to discuss the matter, that's fine, I'm happy to drop it, but do want to reassure you that I have no interest in being uncivil, and am happy to discuss.

I understand what you're saying.  I simply do not agree with you, as the term or definition of the term "baptism of desire" appears nowhere in Trent.
Reply
#95
(05-27-2018, 09:36 PM)yablabo Wrote: I understand what you're saying.  I simply do not agree with you, as the term or definition of the term "baptism of desire" appears nowhere in Trent.

Nor does "Trinity" appear in the Bibles, nor the explanation of the procession of the Son and Holy Ghost and how there can be three Persons in one God, yet we still believe it and assert that it is one of the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Faith.

"Desire" is in Trent with regard to the reception of the Sacraments, what this means precisely and its definition, like with the Trinity, has to be searched out in the Magisterium and orthodox theologians.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • In His Love, jovan66102
Reply
#96
Looks to me like Yablabo would have done better to maintain that the ideas of Baptism by Desire and by Blood are not Doctrines which require universal assent, than to have gone a step further to claim that they lead to erroneous implications which lead to statements of explicit heresy. I am sympathetic to Yablabo's position: the water is necessary for Baptism and Baptism is necessary for salvation; but I can see that this thread is not about that question and it has fallen off topic because we have gone down the rabbit hole of BoD and BoB.

Let's return to the question at hand: does Augustine really say what the artist formerly known as gracemary5 says he does? Does this represent an incorrect belief on the part of Augustine or an incorrect understanding on the part of gracemary5?
"Punishment is justice for the unjust." Saint Augustine of Hippo
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)