Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 39724 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2021, 06:20:59 PM »

LastTrad is fond of quoting Fr. Cekada about his theological "proof" that infidels can be saved, and the "proofs" for BoD are all in this category. He admits that it's because he can't accept the thought that all those people in the Americas, before they were discovered, could have been lost.

Even St. Robert Bellarmine gave the reason that he believed in BoD for catechuments; it was because the contrary opinion "would seem too harsh".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** February 20, 2021, 06:28:51 PM »

BoD is, very simply put, an unproven piece of speculative theology that has been tolerated by the Church. I believe that it will be condemned very soon after the Church emerges from this crisis. As articulated by St. Thomas or St. Robert Bellarmine, it was relatively harmless ... except that St. Augustine would hold that it subtly draws people to Pelagianism, but in the hands of the Church's enemies ... well, it led directly to all of the destructive doctrine in Vatican II. At very least, the notion of implicit Baptism of Desire saving those who do not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity WILL be condemned as heresy. It should have been about 500 years ago, but the failure to condemn this has led inexorably to Vatican II. This is why even the SLIGHTEST errors needed to be vigorously attacked ... since they tend to become amplified over time.

As I mentioned earlier, it was held unanimously for 1500 years that explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Trinity were necessary for salvation. Then around the year 1500 a couple of Jesuits began dabbling with the innovation of "Rewarder God" theory. They should have been condemned as heretics right out of the gate. But God allowed them not to be, because it was His will that this present crisis come about as it did.

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #27 on:** February 20, 2021, 07:44:54 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 20, 2021, 06:12:36 PM

How do you address the two examples I gave ...

1) where a teaching was held unanimously for 700 years but then overturned by the Church?
2) where Fr. Cekada himself rejects something that was taught universally (and Magisterially) for 1500 years?

No, pointing out that theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens is not a strawman. I'm drawing implications from that. They don't have any Magisterial authority to require assent, so where does it come from?

You suggest that it's due to "tacit approval" by the Church. Tacit approval is not a Magisterial act by any stretch. Church history is replete with examples of opinions of theologians that were held for some time and then only much later rejected by the Church. Letting theologians teach something is not tantamount to actually teaching it. Historically the Church has allowed a significant amount of freedom on matters that have not been defined Magisterially ... until such a time as she considers it prudent.

Nor is your explanation for what happened at Vatican II satisfactory. It really doesn't matter WHY all these theologians caved. Fact is that they caved. I can and have gone into great detail to explain WHY these theologians are mistaken about BoD. This has nothing to do with fortitude or the lack thereof. Either they're capable of being wrong or they're not ... regardless of the reason.

You'll notice that there's a broad range of opinion regarding the theological NOTE of BoD. Well, I hold ... and can prove ... that the note of BoD is nothing more than a piece of speculative theology that has been tolerated by the Church. It has not been revealed, nor has it been demonstrated to flow necessarily from other revealed truths. I heard even an EWTN Novus Ordite, who speculated that people can be saved without membership in the Church, admit that this is speculation and not revealed.

1) Are you saying that the contrary opinion of BOD, and by extension BOB, was held unanimously for 700 years? If so, that is simply not true. Saint Ambrose, Saint Cyril, Saint Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian among many others attest to BOD and BOB.
2) I’m not arguing Fr. Cekada’s position, whatever that was.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #28 on:** February 20, 2021, 10:56:06 PM »

Quote

If so, that is simply not true. Saint Ambrose, Saint Cyril, Saint Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian among many others attest to BOD and BOB.

All those people were dead by the 500s. Add 700 yrs and you have the 1200s, with St Thomas.
.
BOB is not BOD. 2 totally separate theological things. If a doctor supported B.O.Blood, that is not an automatic support of BOD.

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #29 on:** February 21, 2021, 03:25:06 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2021, 10:56:06 PM

All those people were dead by the 500s. Add 700 yrs and you have the 1200s, with St Thomas.
.
BOB is not BOD. 2 totally separate theological things. If a doctor supported B.O.Blood, that is not an automatic support of BOD.

1) St. Bede, St. Fulgentius, Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, St. Bernard, Pope Innocent II, and Pope Innocent III all lived between 500 and 1216, all supported either BOD or BOB.

2) What is the same about BOD and BOB that vitiates your argument is the fact that both recognize the ability to be saved without the actual sacrament of Baptism. This is actually what your argument is all about. Frankly, I don’t see how you can believe in one and not the other.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 39724 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Mirari Vos

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Pax Vobis

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Mirari Vos

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus