Author Topic: Great article on "Baptism of Desire." (Read 20726 times)

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #30 on:** June 17, 2011, 01:07:51 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

In order of excellence: 1. Garrigou-Lagrange 2. Tanquerey (except a quibble with his description of membership in the Church) 3. Msgr. Joseph Fenton (who almost single-handedly refuted false ecclesiology for over a decade in the pages of A.E.R.)

Yes! However, I have not read much of Msgr. Fenton, who was a student of Rev. Fr. Reginald, if memory serves right.

What are we to think of Rev. Fr. Matthias Scheeben?

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #31 on:** June 17, 2011, 02:09:44 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Yes! However, I have not read much of Msgr. Fenton, who was a student of Rev. Fr. Reginald, if memory serves right.

What are we to think of Rev. Fr. Matthias Scheeben?

I think we should not compare theologians of different times.

He was certainly very influential in his defense of the Catholic religion in regard to the unity of faith and reason. In a time where either fideism or rationalism was dominant.

I also don´t think that we can classify him as a Thomist in the strict sense of the word, despite his strong connection to the Roman School. Some people even call him a "Hegel of Catholic theology", saying that he created a kind of theological late-Idealism or romanticist theology.
He is also very difficult in his language, making his writings on the mysteries sometimes quite mysterious!

What is largely unknown is his theory on the "self-termination of the teaching authority" through heresy. Only one or two sedevacantist authors picked that up - maybe also due to the fact that his writings are no longer very much known outside of the German speaking countries.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #32 on:** June 17, 2011, 02:37:47 AM »

But certainly the French Jesuit and former Cardinal Louis Billot should not be forgotten there, probably the most influential person in the Thomist sector before Garrigou-Lagrange, and of course an ardent fighter of modernism and liberalism.

Cristian · « **Reply #33 on:** June 17, 2011, 06:49:57 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

In order of excellence: 1. Garrigou-Lagrange 2. Tanquerey (except a quibble with his description of membership in the Church) 3. Msgr. Joseph Fenton (who almost single-handedly refuted false ecclesiology for over a decade in the pages of A.E.R.)

In which issue? Ecclesiology?

1) Garrigou`s dealing on membership in the Church is quite wrong... he followed Suarez! :boxer:

2) What was the problem with Tanquerey?

3) I like Billot, Fenton and Dom Grea :)

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #34 on:** June 18, 2011, 03:19:56 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

I also don´t think that we can classify him as a Thomist in the strict sense of the word, despite his strong connection to the Roman School. Some people even call him a "Hegel of Catholic theology", saying that he created a kind of theological late-Idealism or romanticist theology.

My impression of Rev. Fr. Scheeben is that he was to the study of Sacred Theology what Msgr. Knox was to the study of the Sacred Vulgate amongst the Anglophones: very beautifully and refreshingly coalescent, but with a certain unnerving novelty that necessitates a very thorough familiarity with the Douay-Rhemish translations in order to estimate its merit. So likewise, Rev. Fr. Scheeben ought not to be read without a previous solid foundation on Thomistic theology and philosophy.

He has been abused much by the theologians of the "Vatican II" era, who read him without a strong Thomistic foundation, or who sought him out as an alternative to the Thomism they sought to undermine.

Quote

He is also very difficult in his language, making his writings on the mysteries sometimes quite mysterious!

I love his language, though I have to read a sentence fives times on three non-consecutive occasions for me to fully comprehend the meaning thereof. His style embodies an Eleusinian sublimity that is as lovely and haunting as it is intimidating.

His notion of "super-nature" is truly ineffable.

Quote

What is largely unknown is his theory on the "self-termination of the teaching authority" through heresy. Only one or two sedevacantist authors picked that up - maybe also due to the fact that his writings are no longer very much known outside of the German speaking countries.

Oh, I'd like to know more about that when you have the opportunity to discuss it.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #35 on:** June 18, 2011, 03:41:18 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

My impression of Rev. Fr. Scheeben is that he was to the study of Sacred Theology what Msgr. Knox was to the study of the Sacred Vulgate amongst the Anglophones: very beautifully and refreshingly coalescent, but with a certain unnerving novelty that necessitates a very thorough familiarity with the Douay-Rhemish translations in order to estimate its merit. So likewise, Rev. Fr. Scheeben ought not to be read without a previous solid foundation on Thomistic theology and philosophy.

He has been abused much by the theologians of the "Vatican II" era, who read him without a strong Thomistic foundation, or who sought him out as an alternative to the Thomism they sought to undermine.

You are probably right there.

Quote

I love his language, though I have to read a sentence fives times on three non-consecutive occasions for me to fully comprehend the meaning thereof. His style embodies an Eleusinian sublimity that is as lovely and haunting as it is intimidating.

His notion of "super-nature" is truly ineffable.

I never saw any of his writings in English, which must have a somewhat different notion due to the many latinisms in the English language. Scheeben must have invented hundreds of Neologisms and basically created the theological language of Germany.
Again, some people criticize him because of his de-latinization, creating a kind of theological ghetto for German divines.

Quote

Oh, I'd like to know more about that when you have the opportunity to discuss it.

I would love to do that, but unfortunately I don´t have the necessary literature available here. I will supply on a later date.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** June 18, 2011, 10:50:14 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Speaking of Baptism of Desire, I have been thinking..... oh, oh!

On Ascension Thur. the Epistle mentioned two baptisms one of water and one of Spirit.
I happen to believe as the Church teaches that baptism of blood and desire are valid teachings of the Church.
What about this baptism of the spirit, could that be the same as baptism of desire, in other words baptised by the Holy Ghost because a person died before water baptism took place.

Just asking!

No. If one dies before receiving water baptism, traditionally, the Church taught that such a person would end up in hell.
Typical of Perennial Magisterium teaching, She answered this question absolutely and for all time.

Our Lord made water a requirement explicitly. This requirement was echoed in Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. same as we confess absolute belief in at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass before Almighty God that we believe there is only one baptism when we pray "confetior unam baptisma" in the Nicene Creed.

The Doctrine of Divine Providence of God teaches that God will never snatch from this life, one who is sincere without that person first receiving the most necessary of all the Sacraments - baptism with water.

If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?

Caminus · « **Reply #37 on:** June 18, 2011, 11:47:43 AM »

I suppose your screename is well chosen.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #38 on:** June 18, 2011, 12:05:30 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
Speaking of Baptism of Desire, I have been thinking..... oh, oh!

On Ascension Thur. the Epistle mentioned two baptisms one of water and one of Spirit.
I happen to believe as the Church teaches that baptism of blood and desire are valid teachings of the Church.
What about this baptism of the spirit, could that be the same as baptism of desire, in other words baptised by the Holy Ghost because a person died before water baptism took place.

Just asking!

No. If one dies before receiving water baptism, traditionally, the Church taught that such a person would end up in hell.
Typical of Perennial Magisterium teaching, She answered this question absolutely and for all time.

Our Lord made water a requirement explicitly. This requirement was echoed in Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. same as we confess absolute belief in at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass before Almighty God that we believe there is only one baptism when we pray "confetior unam baptisma" in the Nicene Creed.

The Doctrine of Divine Providence of God teaches that God will never snatch from this life, one who is sincere without that person first receiving the most necessary of all the Sacraments - baptism with water.

If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?

Just a comment, my understanding of "one baptism" the words you underlined above, means there is only One Lord, One Faith, and that Faith is Catholic, therefore anyone properly baptised is baptised Catholic, even if baptised properly in a Protestant church. The keyword being "properly" otherwise if not properly it is not a baptism at all in the eyes of God.

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** June 18, 2011, 03:41:13 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: MyrnaM
Speaking of Baptism of Desire, I have been thinking..... oh, oh!

On Ascension Thur. the Epistle mentioned two baptisms one of water and one of Spirit.
I happen to believe as the Church teaches that baptism of blood and desire are valid teachings of the Church.
What about this baptism of the spirit, could that be the same as baptism of desire, in other words baptised by the Holy Ghost because a person died before water baptism took place.

Just asking!

No. If one dies before receiving water baptism, traditionally, the Church taught that such a person would end up in hell.
Typical of Perennial Magisterium teaching, She answered this question absolutely and for all time.

Our Lord made water a requirement explicitly. This requirement was echoed in Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. same as we confess absolute belief in at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass before Almighty God that we believe there is only one baptism when we pray "confetior unam baptisma" in the Nicene Creed.

The Doctrine of Divine Providence of God teaches that God will never snatch from this life, one who is sincere without that person first receiving the most necessary of all the Sacraments - baptism with water.

If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?

Just a comment, my understanding of "one baptism" the words you underlined above, means there is only One Lord, One Faith, and that Faith is Catholic, therefore anyone properly baptised is baptised Catholic, even if baptised properly in a Protestant church. The keyword being "properly" otherwise if not properly it is not a baptism at all in the eyes of God.

Absolutely.

Even little protestant infants who are baptized and die before they reach the age of reason are saved! Baptism made them Catholic!

Folks who adhere to BOD completely neglect or completely pervert the Doctrine of Divine Providence - "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** June 18, 2011, 03:44:16 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

I suppose your screename is well chosen.

I think it is.

Caminus · « **Reply #41 on:** June 18, 2011, 05:01:02 PM »

Quote

Folks who adhere to BOD completely neglect or completely pervert the Doctrine of Divine Providence - "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.

When one, whoever they may be, receives the graces of baptism in a circuмstance where they could not receive the actual sacrament is an act of Fatherly Providence par excellence.

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** June 18, 2011, 05:25:15 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
Folks who adhere to BOD completely neglect or completely pervert the Doctrine of Divine Providence - "For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.

When one, whoever they may be, receives the graces of baptism in a circuмstance where they could not receive the actual sacrament is an act of Fatherly Providence par excellence.

Two problems with this:
1) one cannot receive the graces of baptism until they are baptized.
2) the doctrine of Divine Providence teaches that circuмstances are not the result of fate and cannot happen by chance since God authors all "circuмstances". Divine Providence ensures that each human is guaranteed to receive what we sincerely desire, provided it's necessary for our salvation.

Caminus · « **Reply #43 on:** June 18, 2011, 06:26:44 PM »

1. Begs the question.
2. If you miss Mass on Sunday because you are too ill to go, do you committ a mortal sin? Is that a slip of Providence or the result of fate? If the former, it is no fault of your own, though you impute a fault to God, if the latter the question of free will is entirely removed. What's a man to do?

Stubborn · « **Reply #44 on:** June 18, 2011, 06:47:52 PM »

If your immediate salvation depended on you're attendance at mass, depend on God to provide mass for you.