Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire (Read 28045 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #180 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:53:07 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

It is based on the constant infallible teaching of the Church ...

No it's not. You can find more Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD than those who accept it. In fact, you can find only one Church Father who clearly teaches it, St. Augustine, and St. Augustine CLEARLY indicates with his language that it's an exercise in speculative theology and then later VERY FORCEFULLY retracts BoD and makes some of the strongest Anti-BOD statements that can be found in any of the Church Fathers.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #181 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:53:45 AM »

Further, do you affirm or deny that Sacramental Baptism in necessary by a necessity of precept and by a necessity of means but not by intrinsic necessity?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #182 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:56:00 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
It is based on the constant infallible teaching of the Church ...

No it's not. You can find more Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD than those who accept it. In fact, you can find only one Church Father who clearly teaches it, St. Augustine, and St. Augustine CLEARLY indicates with his language that it's an exercise in speculative theology and then later VERY FORCEFULLY retracts BoD and makes some of the strongest Anti-BOD statements that can be found in any of the Church Fathers.

I know you to be sincere my friend but on this issue you are surely misguided. Or do you believe the encyclicals by Pius XI and XII that touched on the issue were not authoritative and infallible?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #183 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:56:03 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

My statement does not completely undermine the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. When one is baptized with water it is God Who cleanses the soul of Original Sin. Do you affirm or deny this?

If you read my post above, I already explicitly affirm this. You're using this, however, to argue that the Sacrament of Baptism isn't a necessary INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE BY WHICH God does the cleansing, i.e. that God cleanses directly, without the Sacrament of Baptism as an intermediary ... which is denying Trent's teaching on the NECESSITY of Baptism. Your previous argument has been to characterize the necessity as a necessity of precept, but that flies in the face of all the theologians who teach about that subject.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #184 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:58:21 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
It is based on the undeniable fact that God does not condemn a soul to eternal Hell-fire through no fault of his own.

If understood in the sense that you mean it, LoT, that's a Pelagian premise. Nevertheless, all of the sensible suffering in hell is certainly due to personal sin. Not, however, the loss of salvation itself. We can (and perhaps should) certainly believe that God will bring salvation to any adult who has not committed personal sin, but that doesn't mean God will not bring salvation to such people via Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism.

Quote
It is based upon the fact that it is God who cleanses the soul from Original sin not the water.

That statement completely undermines the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism taught by Trent. Of course God cleanses, but God has established the Sacrament of Baptism as a necessary instrumental cause, necessary by a necessity of means.

Quote
The Council of Trent taught one can be justified by Baptism of desire ...

It did no such thing; my arguments to the effect that Trent did NOT teach BoD have NEVER been addressed. They are really rock solid; why is why you can't address them.

All of the underlying arguments for BoD are decidedly un Catholic (I'm not talking about citations from authority that allegedly teach BoD but about the theological "reasoning" behind it).

It's some admixture of ...

1) it would not be fair for God to not save someone who has not received Baptism through not fault of their own (What about unbaptized infants? Why can't God just bring such a one to Baptism? Is that not "possible" for God?)

2) God cannot be bound by the Sacraments. (Yet God can be bound by "impossibility"? God cannot BE bound but God certainly can BIND. He has established how were are to be saved, and it's not for us to second-guess that. We need only understand what He has revealed to us with regard to the requirements for salvation. This argument denies Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.).

Can you at least admit that BOD is not predicated on the idea that it is impossible for God to work a miracle to baptize someone with water? If not can you supply the source that teaches the contrary?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #185 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:00:17 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
It is based on the constant infallible teaching of the Church ...

No it's not. You can find more Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD than those who accept it. In fact, you can find only one Church Father who clearly teaches it, St. Augustine, and St. Augustine CLEARLY indicates with his language that it's an exercise in speculative theology and then later VERY FORCEFULLY retracts BoD and makes some of the strongest Anti-BOD statements that can be found in any of the Church Fathers.

I know you to be sincere my friend but on this issue you are surely misguided. Or do you believe the encyclicals by Pius XI and XII that touched on the issue were not authoritative and infallible?

I am not aware of any encyclicals of either Pius XI or Pius XII that teach BoD. There was of course Suprema Haec and I question both its authenticity and its authority.

I have studied this subject for years. I used to believe in BoD for catechumens because I thought that the Church Fathers taught it and because I thought that Trent taught it. But in actually going back and doing the research, I find that this is simply not the case. If Trent taught it, then obviously it's de fide, and I read Trent at a time when I believed in BoD for catechumens. I read the entire treatise on justification in Latin and found ... to my surprise, actually ... that Trent was clearly not intending to teach BoD.

This will be the one of the first issues that will need to be authoritatively settled by the Church when the smoke of the V2 apostasy clears.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #186 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:06:58 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
My statement does not completely undermine the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. When one is baptized with water it is God Who cleanses the soul of Original Sin. Do you affirm or deny this?

If you read my post above, I already explicitly affirm this. You're using this, however, to argue that the Sacrament of Baptism isn't a necessary INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE BY WHICH God does the cleansing, i.e. that God cleanses directly, without the Sacrament of Baptism as an intermediary ... which is denying Trent's teaching on the NECESSITY of Baptism. Your previous argument has been to characterize the necessity as a necessity of precept, but that flies in the face of all the theologians who teach about that subject.

The Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of God cleansing the soul of Original Sin but it admits of exceptions.

Show me where Trent teaches the opposite of what it seems to teach. Even Father Feeney would disagree with you. Are you aware that he admitted desire for the sacrament can justify a person based upon his reading of Trent. He read it in Latin and understood what it said. This is why most "Feeneyites" disagree with him. They do not believe "baptism of desire" does anything.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #187 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:08:40 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Can you at least admit that BOD is not predicated on the idea that it is impossible for God to work a miracle to baptize someone with water? If not can you supply the source that teaches the contrary?

But that's where the idea was originally hatched. BoB was first developed because people saw some catechumens getting martyred, whereas there were veritable scuмbuckets who got baptized on their deathbeds after living lives of sin. Then BoD came along for the same reasons. This was admitted even by St. Augustine, that the idea was founded upon people questioning whether this was "fair". There's no evidence that this was revealed or you would have all the Church Fathers unanimously teaching it. But against St. Augustine you can find about 4 or 5 Fathers who very forcefully reject BoD (some accept BoB but then reject BoD). St. Robert Bellarmine admits that the Church Fathers were divided on this issue.

That's why I question your statement that BoD has been the "constant teaching of the Church"; there's just no actual evidence for that.

There are two ways in which something can be said to be revealed.

1) directly revealed, as indicated by a unanimous consent of the Church Fathers (no such evidence exists)

2) implicitly and necessarily derived from other revealed dogmas (I have seen no syllogism which derives BoD from other revealed dogmas)

Consequently, I see no evidence for this to be de fide. I see it as little more than a piece of speculative theology, based on various emotional reasons (as I outlined above), that the Church has allowed and tolerated and even endorsed (but never definitely taught or defined).

Yet I see also that BoD was extended gradually beyond catechumens to various heretics and schismatics, and then even to infidels and pagans. And it's this idea which has been exploited to lead to the modern V2 ecclesiology and to religious indifferentism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #188 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:10:03 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Show me where Trent teaches the opposite of what it seems to teach.

I've posted my explanation for why Trent doesn't teach BoD probably about a dozen times on the myriad different threads. I don't feel like typing out the whole thing again, so I'll look it up and perhaps we could start a separate thread dedicated to that question.

Cantarella · « **Reply #189 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:18:06 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

This will be the one of the first issues that will need to be authoritatively settled by the Church when the smoke of the V2 apostasy clears.

Upon re examination of the so called Baptism of Desire and its devastating effects on the EENS salutary dogma, a Papal solemn condemnation of it once and for all, even for cathechumens, will serve the purpose.

The denial of EENS via BOD ( or better said last minute Act of Contrition for an unbaptized person) has been the main devilish weapon Modernism has brought against the Faith. We should have listened to Fr. Feeney.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #190 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:24:20 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Can you at least admit that BOD is not predicated on the idea that it is impossible for God to work a miracle to baptize someone with water? If not can you supply the source that teaches the contrary?

But that's where the idea was originally hatched. BoB was first developed because people saw some catechumens getting martyred, whereas there were veritable scuмbuckets who got baptized on their deathbeds after living lives of sin. Then BoD came along for the same reasons. This was admitted even by St. Augustine, that the idea was founded upon people questioning whether this was "fair". There's no evidence that this was revealed or you would have all the Church Fathers unanimously teaching it. But against St. Augustine you can find about 4 or 5 Fathers who very forcefully reject BoD (some accept BoB but then reject BoD). St. Robert Bellarmine admits that the Church Fathers were divided on this issue.

That's why I question your statement that BoD has been the "constant teaching of the Church"; there's just no actual evidence for that.

There are two ways in which something can be said to be revealed.

1) directly revealed, as indicated by a unanimous consent of the Church Fathers (no such evidence exists)

2) implicitly and necessarily derived from other revealed dogmas (I have seen no syllogism which derives BoD from other revealed dogmas)

Consequently, I see no evidence for this to be de fide. I see it as little more than a piece of speculative theology, based on various emotional reasons (as I outlined above), that the Church has allowed and tolerated and even endorsed (but never definitely taught or defined).

Yet I see also that BoD was extended gradually beyond catechumens to various heretics and schismatics, and then even to infidels and pagans. And it's this idea which has been exploited to lead to the modern V2 ecclesiology and to religious indifferentism.

Why would Saint Alphonsus claim it de fide in a very serious work of his and not be corrected for it. He based this, at least in part, on Trent. You will admit that he understood the Latin and had the qualifications to make basic distinctions between norms and absolutes.

You are aware of the difference between "necessity of means" and "intrinsic necessity" are you not?

If one were to use your own logic against you and say those who deny BOD predicate their denial on the idea that it is impossible for God to cleanse the soul from Original Sin unless water is involved?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #191 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:31:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Show me where Trent teaches the opposite of what it seems to teach.

I've posted my explanation for why Trent doesn't teach BoD probably about a dozen times on the myriad different threads. I don't feel like typing out the whole thing again, so I'll look it up and perhaps we could start a separate thread dedicated to that question.

I'm sorry Ladislaus. I have gained alot more respect for you lately. In the past I would probably skip over your posts on the issue. In the same vein I have posted numerous writings from esteemed theologians, mainly Monsignor Fenton and all those he uses to support Church teaching on the issue and wonder if you have read them, or not understood them, or simply dismissed them as not true because you do not believe they can stand up against the evidence you believe you have garnered.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #192 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:42:09 AM »

Here is a link that might be of interest:

http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=159&sid=eb421fa4cf10f541cae7fb743b5807fa

Ladislaus · « **Reply #193 on:** May 13, 2014, 01:46:59 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I have gained a lot more respect for you lately.

Likewise. It's better to focus on the things about which we agree sometimes, isn't it?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #194 on:** May 13, 2014, 02:02:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
I have gained a lot more respect for you lately.

Likewise. It's better to focus on the things about which we agree sometimes, isn't it?

I would say so. It is good to sharpen your antlers but not productive when both sides are 100% sure they are correct, both teaching, neither learning.