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 23357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #80 on: May 31, 2018, 11:29:43 AM »
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. 




Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #81 on: May 31, 2018, 11:30:33 AM »
^^^^ 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.


Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #82 on: May 31, 2018, 11:37:32 AM »
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.

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #83 on: May 31, 2018, 11:41:59 AM »
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?

Re: Genuinely curious - rejection of Baptism and the Council of Trent
« Reply #84 on: May 31, 2018, 11:45:11 AM »
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 .