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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12

Author Topic: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire  (Read 10981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aryzia

Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2018, 10:07:06 AM »
Quote from: RomanTheo on April 23, 2018, 09:19:38 AM
Happenby: Nope.  In fact, its necessary for the person representing the child to desire the sacrament on behalf of the child.

Reply: Incorrect. The person representing the child (the godparents) professes the faith for the child; they do not desire baptism for him.

If it were necessary for a child to have a representative "desire baptism" on their behalf, the baptism of an infant with no one but the minister of the sacrament present would be invalid.  What we see is that your personal interpretation of the canons of Trent is leading you from one error to another.
Wrong. The person representing the child must affirm they desire baptism for the child. Or it doesn't happen. Have you never been to a baptism? Or weren't you paying attention? The Church does not baptized the unwilling.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
« Reply #46 on: April 23, 2018, 10:07:41 AM »
Readers of dogmas work from the foundation of dogma. With readers of dogmas like myself, if you want to convince me about some subject that has been thoroughly defined, like EENS, you have to debate with dogma that is clear. This because dogma is the final judgement on a matter previously in dispute and must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them. DENY THEM.



On the other hand, with interpreters of dogma, the actually dogmas mean nothing, they must be interpreted by "an expert". From there they go seeking teachers according to their own beliefs. As anyone who is honest with themselves will see, these experts (Novus Ordo, SSPX, CMRI) have today concluded that the Athanasian Creed does not say that one must believe in Christ and the Holy Trinity. If you want proof that dogmas MEAN NOTHING to them, and the Denial of dogma, there is no better example.
Logged

Offline Last Tradhican

Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2018, 10:14:09 AM »
Honestly, I do not see why any strict EENSer debates with these deniers of the need for baptism, the need for desire for baptism, the need to be a Catholic, the need to believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Their defending of BOD of the catechumen is just a smoke screen for total unbelief in EENS.

I have a family to take care of, I do not have the inclination or time to waste on these people who are so embarrassed of what they believe that they do not come out upfront and declare what they really believe, that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, without any desire to be baptized or Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Holy Trinity.

Cut to the chase!
Logged

Offline RomanTheo

Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2018, 11:04:21 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 23, 2018, 09:35:35 AM
Again, for the 4th time, it doesn't suffice by itself, but is necessary.  You can't have something in actu without first having it in potentia.  In other words, the Baptismal character is a necessary but not sufficient cause.
I cited St. Thomas and Fr. Fenton teaching that the character is a spiritual potency to receive the Eucharist.  If you reject this, and instead maintain that it is a potency to receive sanctifying grace, produce an authoritative source who teaches it.  Good luck.
Logged

Offline RomanTheo

Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
« Reply #49 on: April 23, 2018, 11:11:19 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 23, 2018, 09:36:56 AM
Well, you disagree with St. Alphonsus on that one; he teaches that the godparents vicariously desire and intend to receive the Sacrament for him.
The validity of infant baptism is not dependent upon the godparents representing the child by desiring baptism for them.  If it were, an infant baptism that took place without godparents would be invalid.  Is that what you're suggesting?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12
« previous next »