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 23340 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2018, 10:43:12 AM »
Maybe during the Arian period there was some doubt as to the quality of teaching of BoD, 

:laugh1:  What do you mean "some doubt"?  It was not taught by ANYONE prior to the time of the early scholastics except one idle speculation of St. Augustine.  Now, St. Augustine later retracted the opinion forcefully and has some of the strongest anti-BoD statements on record, but the early scholastics did not have access to his entire body of work and were not aware of the retraction.  But the early scholastics found themselves in such awe of St. Augustine that they accepted too much of his speculations as theological fact.  When Hugh of St. Victor and Abelard were disputing over BoD, Peter Lombard went to St. Bernard to help settle the controversy.  St. Bernard simply responded that he'd rather be wrong with Augustine than right based on his own opinion ... thereby admitting that it's possible St. Augustine got this wrong, but just yielding in humility.  So Peter Lombard wrote the earliest scholastic-type manual.  From there St. Thomas Aquinas picked it up ... and then it went viral through him.  THAT is the true history of BoD.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #76 on: May 31, 2018, 10:47:43 AM »
Anyways, the tension between the necessity of baptism and BoD is just a fabrication, both with regards to what the Church teaches and in regards to the very foundation (i.e., "ordinary" language and "plain" meanings) on which the case for a contradiction rests.

Hogwash.  Nice little discourse on "necessity" but theologians hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by a necessity of means.  No ambiguity there.  Theologians do not use "ordinary language" but use technical theological terms that have very precise meanings.  This rules out there being any substitute for the Sacrament of Baptism.  They then involve themselves in contradiction trying to explain this away.  This problem is NOT a contradiction.  Abelard rejected the opinion based on the law of non-contradiction.  Abelard by the way was also the first to reject another opinion of St. Augustine, and the Church subsequently sided with Abelard over St. Augustine on the question.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #77 on: May 31, 2018, 10:50:34 AM »
.
Can you reply to everything I say in a post in one post?
.
I don't care what Karl Rahner says, as heretics aren't a reliable guide for Church teaching.

Rahner was HONEST ... even if heretical.  He had every reason to distort the historical / Patristic record, but he wouldn't do it because he had a certain amount of intellectual integrity that most Traditionalist BoDers lack.


Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #79 on: May 31, 2018, 11:12:56 AM »
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

^^^^ A product / invention of Fr. Cekada :facepalm:

He has so many errors in that link that it would be a very long thread by itself just to go through them all.