Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus  (Read 2748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
  • Reputation: +165/-49
  • Gender: Male
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2021, 08:09:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Seems a bit iffy. Dogma is what it says on the tin. Sure the context is helpful for understanding what exactly they meant, but you can't use context to make it say something it doesn't either. For example, just because I said "2+2=4" in opposition to people asserting it equalled 3, that doesn't mean you can turn around and say I just said it to condemn the 2+2=3'ers and not necessarily the 2+2=5'ers who came about centuries after my statement. Now, I get that the examples you cited aren't as clear cut as my absurd scenario, of course, but the funny business in the example I gave is exactly the kind of stuff you see modernists try to do with dogma. And it's a slippery slope starting from where you're standing and ending with full-on Vatican 2 "dogma evolves" nonsense.

    When Trent says the ceremonies of the Church can't incentivise impiety, it means exactly that. It doesn't refer to any explicit kind of impiety, or to a teaching that all ceremonies are impious, etc. It means what it says: anyone who teaches that the ceremonies of the Church incentivise impiety is condemned. Just because they were making the statement in response to a very specific teaching doesn't mean the dogma refers to only that narrow slice; if the dogma speaks broadly, it teaches broadly.
    Exactly. I'd phrase it a bit differently: a decision regarding a specific teaching reaches its conclusions via general principles that are applied. Those principles are of course transferrable to other, later unanticipated situations . . . situations created by modernists, heretics, etc. who then have to avoid the general principles somehow, and they do it by saying, "but that encyclical, council etc. was dealing with x situation, and here we are in y." 

    The most glaring recent instance of this was that guy William Albrecht who responded to one of the Dimonds who called into the Reason and Theology podcast and quoted Mortalium Animos and its enunciation of general Catholic principles about the one, true Catholic faith and its necessity and how it precludes joint worship and ecumenical practices by limiting it to some specific activity that prompted the encyclical. 

    Hey, he (they) have to respond somehow I guess. Their noisy nonsense is at least not the confession that the silence from lack of a reasoned response would be. 
    I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6028
    • Reputation: +2850/-512
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #16 on: February 20, 2021, 06:24:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • On the other hand, not a single theologian, post Trent, holds Father Feeney’s position. Subsequently, Father Cekada was right, since, according to you, he said ‘you must accept it under gave sin’ and not heresy. Now, you must admit that the unanimous opinion, post Trent, is that the Church, at the very least, teaches it and since the Church teaches it, we are bound to believe it by our duty of obedience to the Church. Please show me if you think this is incorrect.
    Yes, it does appear that this is true although I still think BOD leaves people not knowing whether a person was saved.  It's like what I got from other trads when my father died, "Well, there is BOD....".  I am fairly certain that the Church didn't teach that we could fall back on it with such hope for non-Catholics.  
    I'd like to hear Ladislaus' response to your post though.
    "For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad."- Luke 8:17


    Offline Mirari Vos

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 169
    • Reputation: +80/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #17 on: February 20, 2021, 07:21:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, it does appear that this is true although I still think BOD leaves people not knowing whether a person was saved.  It's like what I got from other trads when my father died, "Well, there is BOD....".  I am fairly certain that the Church didn't teach that we could fall back on it with such hope for non-Catholics.  
    I'd like to hear Ladislaus' response to your post though.
    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. 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.

    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. In the case of the unbaptised person who is dying (not a catechumen), is it possible that they asked a nurse to baptize them? Of course. Did this ever had happen? Possibly. Does it happen often? Obviously no.

    How about the case of a Jew who was secretly learning the catechism? Wouldn’t he be considered a catechumen? 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. 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.

    Offline Mirari Vos

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 169
    • Reputation: +80/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #18 on: February 20, 2021, 07:46:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • One other thing, BOD is NOT a sacrament. Many people that do believe in BOD mistakingly maintain that it is a sacrament, it is not. It suffices for the sacrament, but it’s not the sacrament itself.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 23692
    • Reputation: +13254/-3666
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #19 on: February 20, 2021, 08:49:16 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • On the other hand, not a single theologian, post Trent, holds Father Feeney’s position. Subsequently, Father Cekada was right, since, according to you, he said ‘you must accept it under gave sin’ and not heresy. Now, you must admit that the unanimous opinion, post Trent, is that the Church, at the very least, teaches it and since the Church teaches it, we are bound to believe it by our duty of obedience to the Church. Please show me if you think this is incorrect.

    No, this theory that I call Cekadism has no basis in Catholic doctrine.  Theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens and even a widely-held opinion has no authority.  It MAY with a bunch of other notes be considered as reflecting the faith of the Church, but that's as far as it goes.

    From about the year 400 to 1100, every single theologian held the Augustinian position that unbaptized infants went to hell and suffered some (albeit very mild) pain.  This was first challenged by Abelard.  And the Church ended up siding with Abelard and overturning the Augustinian position.  Did Abelard commit a mortal sin in rejecting that opinion?  No, in fact, he did a great service to the Church in doing so.  BTW, Abelard also rejected Baptism of Desire.

    Similarly, it was held unanimously for 1500 years that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  If ANYTHING would constitute an infallible teaching of the OUM, that would be it.  But it's remarkable how many Cekadists, including Fr. Cekada himself, think it's OK to reject that teaching (held and taught Magisterially for 1500 years) and claim that unconverted infidels can be saved.  So something was infallibly true for 1500 years and then at a certain point in time became infallibly false?

    Not only do some sedevacantists exaggerate the scope of infallibility with regard to the Magisterium, but they effectively extend this infallibility even to theologians.  Some have gone so far as to say that everything with an imprimatur on it must be held as certain truth.

    This infallibility of theologians is made up out of whole cloth.

    Oh, BTW, I defy you to find more than one theologian out of many thousands who rejected the errors of Vatican II.  You had a small handful of Traditional Catholics, but alas none of them were theologians.  So 99%+ of theologians upheld the teachings of Vatican II as perfectly orthodox.


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4776
    • Reputation: +2490/-1405
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #20 on: February 20, 2021, 09:35:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Similarly, it was held unanimously for 1500 years that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  If ANYTHING would constitute an infallible teaching of the OUM, that would be it.  But it's remarkable how many Cekadists, including Fr. Cekada himself, think it's OK to reject that teaching (held and taught Magisterially for 1500 years) and claim that unconverted infidels can be saved.  So something was infallibly true for 1500 years and then at a certain point in time became infallibly false?
    Very good. Very simple. This is exactly to the point, and speaks better to our time than the St. Augustine "limbo infant suffers pains". I shall use it henceforth. Thanks.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4776
    • Reputation: +2490/-1405
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #21 on: February 20, 2021, 10:12:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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)

    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 )

    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)
    Nothing wrong with you explanation, I just make a few points in red.( and black for some reason)
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Mirari Vos

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 169
    • Reputation: +80/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #22 on: February 20, 2021, 03:26:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, this theory that I call Cekadism has no basis in Catholic doctrine.  Theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens and even a widely-held opinion has no authority.  It MAY with a bunch of other notes be considered as reflecting the faith of the Church, but that's as far as it goes.

    From about the year 400 to 1100, every single theologian held the Augustinian position that unbaptized infants went to hell and suffered some (albeit very mild) pain.  This was first challenged by Abelard.  And the Church ended up siding with Abelard and overturning the Augustinian position.  Did Abelard commit a mortal sin in rejecting that opinion?  No, in fact, he did a great service to the Church in doing so.  BTW, Abelard also rejected Baptism of Desire.

    Similarly, it was held unanimously for 1500 years that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  If ANYTHING would constitute an infallible teaching of the OUM, that would be it.  But it's remarkable how many Cekadists, including Fr. Cekada himself, think it's OK to reject that teaching (held and taught Magisterially for 1500 years) and claim that unconverted infidels can be saved.  So something was infallibly true for 1500 years and then at a certain point in time became infallibly false?

    Not only do some sedevacantists exaggerate the scope of infallibility with regard to the Magisterium, but they effectively extend this infallibility even to theologians.  Some have gone so far as to say that everything with an imprimatur on it must be held as certain truth.

    This infallibility of theologians is made up out of whole cloth.

    Oh, BTW, I defy you to find more than one theologian out of many thousands who rejected the errors of Vatican II.  You had a small handful of Traditional Catholics, but alas none of them were theologians.  So 99%+ of theologians upheld the teachings of Vatican II as perfectly orthodox.
     Lad, I certainly respect your intelligence and opinion, but I disagree with you on this matter, here is my response:

    1) At least two of the theologians on Father Cekada’s list were part of the Ecclesia Docens and those two are also Doctors of the Church. I didn’t check to see if any of the others were bishops also.

    2) The Ecclesia Docens tacitly approves the unanimous opinion of the theologians. Honestly, how could it be otherwise? Does the Teaching Church not realize what the theologians are saying especially when the opinion is unanimous?  If that wasn’t the case, then the Church would have no need at all for any theologian to explain or help interpret any council or any teaching for that matter. Also, the bishops rely on the theologians to instruct the seminarians. What you’re putting forward makes no sense, a superfluous bunch of theologians.

    3) Father Cekada knew very well that the theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens in so far as the ones who are not bishops. This is a strawman.

    4) As for the theologians who rejected VII,  it seems that most of the orthodox ones were caught off guard. At that early stage of the crisis, not many had the fortitude to resist the “pope”. Fr. Fenton, Cardinal Brown (I believe he was a theologian), Canon Berto, and Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers come to my mind for being critical of it. I’m sure there were many others who we do not know about.

    5) To be clear, I hold that it is necessary to explicitly believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption. This belief can be imparted to an individual by God unbeknownst to anyone.


    Offline Mirari Vos

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 169
    • Reputation: +80/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #23 on: February 20, 2021, 03:27:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nothing wrong with you explanation, I just make a few points in red.( and black for some reason)
    Thank you.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 23692
    • Reputation: +13254/-3666
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #24 on: February 20, 2021, 06:12:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lad, I certainly respect your intelligence and opinion, but I disagree with you on this matter, here is my response:

    1) At least two of the theologians on Father Cekada’s list were part of the Ecclesia Docens and those two are also Doctors of the Church. I didn’t check to see if any of the others were bishops also.

    2) The Ecclesia Docens tacitly approves the unanimous opinion of the theologians. Honestly, how could it be otherwise? Does the Teaching Church not realize what the theologians are saying especially when the opinion is unanimous?  If that wasn’t the case, then the Church would have no need at all for any theologian to explain or help interpret any council or any teaching for that matter. Also, the bishops rely on the theologians to instruct the seminarians. What you’re putting forward makes no sense, a superfluous bunch of theologians.

    3) Father Cekada knew very well that the theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens in so far as the ones who are not bishops. This is a strawman.

    4) As for the theologians who rejected VII,  it seems that most of the orthodox ones were caught off guard. At that early stage of the crisis, not many had the fortitude to resist the “pope”. Fr. Fenton, Cardinal Brown (I believe he was a theologian), Canon Berto, and Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers come to my mind for being critical of it. I’m sure there were many others who we do not know about.

    5) To be clear, I hold that it is necessary to explicitly believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption. This belief can be imparted to an individual by God unbeknownst to anyone.

    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.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 23692
    • Reputation: +13254/-3666
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #25 on: February 20, 2021, 06:20:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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".


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 23692
    • Reputation: +13254/-3666
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #26 on: February 20, 2021, 06:28:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Mirari Vos

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 169
    • Reputation: +80/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #27 on: February 20, 2021, 07:44:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6496
    • Reputation: +3655/-1088
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #28 on: February 20, 2021, 10:56:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 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. 

    Offline Mirari Vos

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 169
    • Reputation: +80/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
    « Reply #29 on: February 21, 2021, 03:25:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16