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 14593 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46562
  • Reputation: +27426/-5067
  • Gender: Male
Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2018, 10:43:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    • *****
    • Posts: 46562
    • Reputation: +27426/-5067
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #76 on: May 31, 2018, 10:47:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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
    • *****
    • Posts: 46562
    • Reputation: +27426/-5067
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #77 on: May 31, 2018, 10:50:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    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 JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +603/-63
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14712
    • Reputation: +6061/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #79 on: May 31, 2018, 11:12:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2768
    • Reputation: +1077/-1637
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #80 on: May 31, 2018, 11:29:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's very curious to me that people find a tension between the necessity of baptism and BoD, because they seem to make this argument based on the "plain" or "obvious" use of the word necessary precluding the possibility of the necessary item being supplied for.
    .
    As an example, it is perfectly sensible to speak of hard work as being necessary to support one's family, and no one who says its necessary would, by saying so, intend to preclude the fact that someone born into a trust fund really doesn't need to work hard, since the property and finances have been supplied in another way.  We could think of a million things that are truly necessary that can be supplied for.  Point simply being that there's nothing "plain" or "obvious" about the word "necessary" radically excluding a supplication of effect; indeed, if we actually "go to the Church" (instead of "Churchmen", as happenby is wont to distinguish) we read that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, which tells you everything you need to know.  Instruments are metaphysically substitutable, while principals (in this case, Christ's passion) are not.  Which is why the Old Testament Fathers, despite doing everything that was asked of them for justification, did not go immediately to Heaven-- because there was not yet a principal efficient cause of their justification.
    .
    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.

    The tension exists because bod and Baptism are not the same thing.  By definition.  That means bod is an 'other' baptism.

    God doesn't need to contradict what He physically spoke with His own lips because circuмstances are said to be beyond Him.  The one and only reason bod is said to exist is utterly false, and probably blasphemous.     

    As bad as that is, there are other reasons to fear the spread of this false teaching.

    Bod undermines the Sacrament by making people less bothered to go do the work it takes to "Go, baptize..."

    I hear it constantly, from NO's as well as from Trads, "Oh, well...he/she will probably get bod because he/she was a super good person."   The spiritual laziness dripping from this attitude is destroying souls and the culprit is the notion that desire alone saves. 




    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +603/-63
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #81 on: May 31, 2018, 11:30:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ^^^^ 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.
    Use of the Identity Fallacy, an Argumentum ad Hominem.  Object to the points, not the person.
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline aryzia

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +120/-166
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #82 on: May 31, 2018, 11:37:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Use of the Identity Fallacy, an Argumentum ad Hominem.  Object to the points, not the person.
    He did object to the points and called them errors.


    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +603/-63
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #83 on: May 31, 2018, 11:41:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He did object to the points and called them errors.
    An argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
    onus probandi incuмbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
    Which points in the link do you consider an error and why?
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4579
    • Reputation: +5300/-457
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #84 on: May 31, 2018, 11:45:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lad,

    I'm not going to follow suit with your splitting up of my posts as though these thoughts are unrelated, all needing to be treated separately.  You're taking me out if context and not reading what I'm saying right out of the gate. It's clear, in fact explicit, that what I said about necessity was directed at happenby.
    .
    I know that this approach is a good way to bury the question I asked you three pages ago and basically reset the discussion to square one. But that doesn't help anyone, and it's probably the source of your impatience-- even if we disagree I've not done anything to warrant that attitude of yours .
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #85 on: May 31, 2018, 11:47:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Thomas Aquinas on the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation:

    From Contra Errores Graecorum:

    Quote
    Caput 38
    Quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis
    CHAPTER 38
    That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.
    Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis. Dicit enim Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum: itaque, fratres mei, sic Christum imitamur, ut ipsius oves vocem eius audiamus, manentes in Ecclesia Petri, et non inflemur vento superbiae, ne forte tortuosus serpens propter nostram contentionem nos eiiciat, ut Evam olim de Paradiso. Et Maximus in epistola Orientalibus directa dicit: coadunatam et fundatam super petram confessionis Petri dicimus universalem Ecclesiam secundum definitionem salvatoris, in qua necessario salutis animarum nostrum est manere, et ei est obedire, suam servantes fidem et confessionem.It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.”



    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline aryzia

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +120/-166
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #86 on: May 31, 2018, 11:48:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • onus probandi incuмbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
    Which points in the link do you consider an error and why?
    I just wanted to point out your error

    Offline JohnAnthonyMarie

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1297
    • Reputation: +603/-63
    • Gender: Male
      • TraditionalCatholic.net
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #87 on: May 31, 2018, 11:51:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just wanted to point out your error
    What exactly is that?
    Omnes pro Christo

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14712
    • Reputation: +6061/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #88 on: May 31, 2018, 11:53:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
    Which points in the link do you consider an error and why?
    Section V
    Points 1, 2 and 3.

    He conveniently (intentionally?) misquotes Pope Pius IX in his point #1, which effectively nullifies points 2 and 3 - as well as his own little chart. Same crap Fr. Cekada has always done in his attempts to justify all his errors.

    No sense to critique the rest of that link, it's all crap.


     
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline aryzia

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 382
    • Reputation: +120/-166
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
    « Reply #89 on: May 31, 2018, 11:54:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What exactly is that?
    It's obvious in my first post. You accused someone of ad hominem attacks when he was addressing the points. Ask him what he objects to.