Has anyone ever taken a look at this?
http://theepistemologicworks.com/frames/books-and-articles/baptismal/baptismal.html
From the link:
"It becomes plain that Trent never explicitly addressed either Water Only or BOD."
From Trent:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
No need to read any further than the first 4 sentences from the link.
Then this may draw your attention:
+++ 12. Swimming in the Riptide +++
Again, the first thing to realize is this --- the Council of Trent says nothing straight out about BOD. Neither the term ‘baptism of desire’ nor the term ‘baptism of spirit’ (BOS, or, in Latin, ‘baptismus flaminis’) is mentioned explicitly by name in the infallible text of its canons.
As a result, whatever Trent said about the Sacrament of Baptism, it most literally wasn’t trying to focus on ‘baptism of desire’ and we thus cannot know for an infallible certainty, or even a moral certainty, that it intended to rule out BOD.
As a matter of fact, the opposite is true!
Because we know that St. Thomas Aquinas very plainly taught BOD --- or, rather, BOS --- at least three times in his Summa Theologica (please go to Chapter 42 in this book to see the exact references). This was in the 13th century. We also know that, by the time of the Council of Trent in the 16th century, Aquinas was so highly respected as a doctor of the Church that, as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
“…the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none [not one other] of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave [part of the daily process of the council] to lay upon the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa [Theologica] of Thomas Aquinas, whence to [from where they could] seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. Greater influence than this no man could have.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for St. Thomas Aquinas, section on his doctrinal influence, 4th paragraph. Published by the Robert Appleton Co. of New York City in 1912. Retrieved 7 February 2012 at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm. All annotations & emphases added.)
Consequently, how could the Council of Trent via Canons 2 & 5 on Baptism have denied a ‘baptism of desire’ that they obviously thought was true due to their massive respect for the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, a copy of which they laid beside the Bible and a collection of papal decrees so as to guide them doctrinally during their sessions?
At the very most, a WO aficionado can intelligently argue that ‘water only’ is at least one possible logical & orthodox interpretation of these canons. But not that it is the sole logical & orthodox interpretation, or that we can know --- with infallible certainty --- that ‘water only’ is for sure a correct orthodox interpretation of Canons 2 & 5. Indeed, to conclude that ‘water only’ is certain despite all of the evidence to the contrary then requires the WO person to treat BOD folks of the orthodox variety as if they are heretics. Which could only be true if the very fallible WO interpretation of these canons is instead an infallible certainty!
‘Water only’ devotees are swimming in exceedingly dangerous surf. The perilous tide of their fierce prejudice against BOD clashes with the unstoppable tide of cold hard fact that pretty much all learned Catholics since the time of Thomas Aquinas --- except for most recent decades --- have believed in BOD… including the fathers of the Council of Trent.
Are WO supporters prepared to anathematize the men who wrote the canons to which they cling?
+++ 13. If BOD Had Been Ruled Out, +++
Then Aquinas Would Have Been Edited
Not only that, but consider this:
If the fathers of the Council of Trent had intended to rule out BOD, then the popes after Trent would have edited the text of Aquinas’ Summa to reflect this new dogmatic certainty. That is to say, either they would have ordered publishers to edit out the offending passages on BOD in the Summa (so that Thomas’ mistaken teaching on BOD could not mislead Catholics into what is now defined as a heresy) or else, at the very least, they would have ordered them to insert admonishments against the BOD teaching (ditto the parenthetical statement above).
And yet popes since the Council of Trent have done none of this!
Is this not a huge red flag, warning us about the error that WO enthusiasts indulge?
Again, think about it.
Trent was the most Catholic and dogmatic general council in all of Church history thus far. Its leaders were hyper-vigilant compared to our more lax times. How could we think that they would be so stupid or careless as to dogmatically define the absolute necessity of water baptism and then tolerate older teachings in support of BOD to stick around and mislead into damnation?
It does not add up.
And this doesn’t even begin to mention how both the catechism produced at Trent’s direction and a Roman cardinal soon after this same council publically allowed for the very real existence of ‘baptism of desire’… but more details about this later in Chapters 91 to 103 of this book.
The point to realize right now is that vigilant leaders like those at the time of Trent would not ever allow heresy to be taught under the guise of orthodoxy if that is what BOD had become due to the canons of the Council of Trent regarding water baptism.
Period.
Topic: Baptismal Confusion (Read 952 times)