Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 32

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus  (Read 39748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2021, 11:40:50 AM »
Here's a better way to infer which theologians in Father Cekada's list believe Trent taught BoD.  Which of them assign a higher theological note to BoD than BoB (since BoB was held by more Fathers)?

Answer:  NINE

NINE of the TWENTY-FIVE (by my count) assign a HIGHER theological note to BoD than to BoB, and we can infer that it's because of their belief that Trent taught it.

So we can infer that the majority of them do NOT believe it was taught by Trent.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2021, 12:23:28 PM »
Here is a real example of a strict believer in BOD of the catechumen, CI member Mirari Vos, a person who limits his belief to the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. ( In bold are just my additions whether red or black). If he were to give his answers to a personal who was grieving the death of a non-Catholic relative and asked what was the fate of his relative, Mirari Vos's answers would be proper Catholic answers. The second separate quote at the bottom  is what XavierSem really believes, that is the difference between a real BODer like Mirari Vos, and a false BODer like XavierSem. Like the difference between a Bald Eagle and a Vulture. That is why you do not see any strict BODers starting threads on CI, and you'll see the false BODers like XvavierSem never stop creating threads and stirring up debates with their chaff. (Chaff - is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminum, which swamps the screen with multiple returns to where the plane can't be identified.)

Quote from: Mirari Vos on Yesterday at 07:21:32 AM
Quote

Thank you. Here is the way I see it: Anyone who dies outside the visible unity of the Church, with the exception of a catechumen, is considered lost. This is reflected by the Church’s canon law (reflected in the Canon Law of 1917, but before that, for 1917 years, catechumens could not be given Catholic burials) . Only God knows the ultimate fate of those who die. We don’t know who was secretly baptized and we can’t read men’s hearts and who made an act of perfect contrition before he expired. This is why we can’t make an absolute judgment, but we can presume that they are lost. (secretly baptized AND made a perfect act of contrition, all true and a proper Catholic  response, that even I would make, and I do not believe in BOD)
Quote
In the case of the Protestant, who was validly baptized, we can hold out the remote hope that they repented and made an act of perfect contrition before they died (Catholic  response, that even I would make) . In the case of the unbaptised person who is dying (not a catechumen), is it possible that they asked a nurse to baptize them? (Catholic  response, that even I would make) Of course. (Did this ever had happen? Possibly. Does it happen often? Obviously no. (This is quite common, and history tells us so, many real examples )
Quote

How about the case of a Jew who was secretly learning the catechism? Wouldn’t he be considered a catechumen? (Yes, but you believe he would receive BOD, I would say he may been unknowingly baptized a t birth, or he could have been baptized by anyone before death)   How extremely rare would this be? How about the Protestant who was studying Catholicism and was convinced of it’s truth? You could say that God doesn’t work that way, but ultimately we don’t know since God’s ways are not our ways (but he has infallible taught us exactly what we need to do to be saved, be a baptized Catholic with no mortal sin on your soul at death and you will be saved). Also, it seems to me that one important reason the Church does not allow ecclesiastical burials for those who die outside the Church (with the exception of catechumen who dies before they are baptized) is to demonstrate that it is of the utmost importance for all to join the visible Church. (True)





Quote
XavierSem - I don't agree with anyone who teaches salvation by implicit faith and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2021, 12:49:27 PM »
Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 21, 2021, 12:23:28 PM
Here is a real example of a strict believer in BOD of the catechumen, CI member Mirari Vos, a person who limits his belief to the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. ( In in bold are just my additions whether red or black). If he were to give his answers to a personal who was grieving the death of a non-Catholic relative and asked what was the fate of his relative, Mirari Vos's answers would be proper Catholic answers. The second separate quote at the bottom  is what XavierSem really believes, that is the difference between a real BODer Mirari Vos, and a false BOD like XavierSem. That is why you do not see any strict BODers starting threads of CI, and you'll see the false BODers like Xvavier Sem never stop creating threads and stirring up debates with their chaff. (Chaff - is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminum, which swamps the screen with multiple returns to where the target can't be identified.)

Quote from: Mirari Vos on Yesterday at 07:21:32 AM
It appears Xavier Sem is taking a position that permits him to also maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre's statement/belief that people can be saved "in other religions, but not by them" doesn't contradict his personal belief  that one must have explicit Christ to be saved.

However, the failure of the Archbishop to clarify that he only meant those who "appear" to be in other religions, and the similar failure of those who follow him with the same view (Prominent among them being Bishops Fellay and Sanborn, for example), indicates the healing spin Xavier Sem attempts to put on the view is not the true interpretation - i.e., they really do believe one can be saved "in other religions but not by them" by being "good" and following their conscience etc.  

This position of Lefebvre, Fellay and Sanborn after all just follows the prior thinking of churchmen like Fr. Fahey, who even went so far as to say that Jҽωs denying Christ could be saved "in their religion." Xavier Sem's spin is belied by the failure of clarification in the face of controversy/question and the prior precedent (vide Fahey) that it grows out of.

Xavier is trying to make consistent the Lefebvre etc. position with a position he holds (which is consistent with St. Thomas) that there may be some saved who have not externally exhibited explicit faith in Christ and may appear to be in other religions but have been be gifted with the revelation of the truth before death and/or in a manner that hasn't been externalized - the classic example being the deathbed conversion.

I wish that were what Lefebvre, Fellay, Sanborn, and a host of others thought, but the evidence is against it.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2021, 12:54:04 PM »
Quote
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching."
I don’t know who wrote this catechism answer but it’s utterly confused.  Not only did they mix-n-match BOD and BOB (which is theologically wrong), but then they erroneously include a perfect act of contrition into the mix. ??  What?!  
.
If BOD truly gives one justification through the sacrament then you don’t need contrition because baptism washes away all your sins.  The inclusion of a perfect act of contrition shows the writer is mixing and matching Trent's allowance for justification/salvation outside of confession (which only applies to Catholics) with the (alleged) BOD requirements.  
.
The “answer” is a confused and erroneous combo of 3 different sacramental issues.  What a mess!
Logged

Offline Bonaventure

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2021, 03:01:22 PM »
As we're on the subject of BOB/BOD, it appears that while you've been arguing the issue, the definition of BOB has been somewhat expanded....

Quote
"I have come here to thank you for your testimony and to pay homage to the people martyred by the insanity of nαzι populism," [Bergoglio] told her.


https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-02/pope-francis-meets-with-auschwitz-survivor.html
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 32
« previous next »