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

Author Topic: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent  (Read 23564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #40 on: May 29, 2018, 03:08:05 PM »
"470 - II. Baptism of water is necessary for the attainment of salvation as an indispensable means for reaching that end. Only in exceptional cases can it be substituted by the Baptism of desire or of blood" - MORAL THEOLOGY, by Rev. Heribert Jone, O. F. M. CAP., J. C. D., and Rev. Urban Adelman, O.F. M. CAP., J. C. D.

Stop it with the obnoxious spam.  Engage in the debate.  You're as bad as LoT was.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #41 on: May 29, 2018, 03:09:37 PM »
To Ladislaus - When you say, "Are you dense or just bad willed?", this is a calumny, defined as "1. a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something. 2. the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation."  It is uncharitable.

No, it is simple fact.  I mentioned that the problem with paragraph 2 is that it's not taken in context with paragraph 1.  Then, in response, you cite paragraph 2 on its own and out of context.  This means exactly one of the two possibilities I mentioned ... or a combination thereof.


Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #42 on: May 29, 2018, 03:15:12 PM »
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer's article entitled "The Three Baptisms".
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #43 on: May 29, 2018, 03:30:52 PM »
CODEX IURIS CANONICI

PARS PRIMA.
DE SACRAMENTIS.


TITULUS XII.
De sepultura ecclesiastica.


CAPUT III.
De iis quibus sepultura ecclesiastica concedenda est aut neganda.


CAN. 1239.
 § 1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
 § 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
 § 3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.

"General Principles. Persons who die without baptism are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical burial (c. 1239, § 1).  Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be considered (in this connection) as baptized (c. 1239, § 2).  All baptized persons are to receive ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly excluded from it by law (c. 1239, § 3)." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #44 on: May 29, 2018, 06:19:34 PM »
CODEX IURIS CANONICI

PARS PRIMA.
DE SACRAMENTIS.


TITULUS XII.
De sepultura ecclesiastica.


CAPUT III.
De iis quibus sepultura ecclesiastica concedenda est aut neganda.


CAN. 1239.
 § 1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
 § 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
 § 3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.

"General Principles. Persons who die without baptism are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical burial (c. 1239, § 1).  Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be considered (in this connection) as baptized (c. 1239, § 2).  All baptized persons are to receive ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly excluded from it by law (c. 1239, § 3)." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.
How does one know whether persons who die without baptism are not at fault?  Simply because they died before they got baptism?  Who judges such a thing?  What if they took their time and didn't get Baptism when they could have?  Or seriously questioned their faith?  Denied their faith?  Didn't regret a mortal sin?  Cursed God last minute?  This canon may be in a book that's supposed to be Catholic, but it really doesn't make sense that people must consider someone as Baptized when they are not.