Author Topic: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire  (Read 1080 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline aryzia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 335
  • Reputation: +93/-132
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2018, 10:07:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2059
    • Reputation: +1096/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #46 on: April 23, 2018, 10:07:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2059
    • Reputation: +1096/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #47 on: April 23, 2018, 10:14:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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!
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 57
    • Reputation: +26/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #48 on: April 23, 2018, 11:04:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline RomanTheo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 57
    • Reputation: +26/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #49 on: April 23, 2018, 11:11:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14234
    • Reputation: +7235/-2299
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #50 on: April 23, 2018, 11:12:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Correct, the ardent promotion of BoD and denunciation of "Feeneyism" has always been driven by a crusade against EENS in general rather than by sympathy for the rare case of a catechumen who would die before Baptism.  Sure, St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the subject ... in a couple paragraphs from thousands of pages of writing.  But for a lot of the Cushingites today it's become their life's mission to promote BoD.


    Offline RomanTheo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 57
    • Reputation: +26/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #51 on: April 23, 2018, 11:29:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2


  • As for BoD and BoB, his position was that since we cannot know the state of a soul of a dying person because we cannot know his interior disposition (only God can discern the thought of our hearts), what becomes of such souls who have not been baptized is left to the providence of God. It's not OUR DECISION what happens. It's God's decision.
    .
    BoB and BoD advocates like "RomanTheo" above are wont to rip that prerogative of God away from Him and make it their own.

    That is absurd.  Professing the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire, as understood and explained by every theologian since the Council of Trent, is not ripping any prerogative away from God. On the contrary, claiming that God cannot save a person who has not been baptized by water is both removing the "decision" from God, and restricting His ability to justify soul by requiring a created reality, upon which He is dependent.  Such an idea subjects the Creator to a creature - the infinite to a finite.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2059
    • Reputation: +1096/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #52 on: April 23, 2018, 02:16:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correct, the ardent promotion of BoD and denunciation of "Feeneyism" has always been driven by a crusade against EENS in general rather than by sympathy for the rare case of a catechumen who would die before Baptism.  Sure, St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the subject ... in a couple paragraphs from thousands of pages of writing.  But for a lot of the Cushingites today it's become their life's mission to promote BoD.
    Do you see how they avoid mentioning their real belief, this Theo character must be the same guy that used the avatar of The Cure of Ars. 
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14234
    • Reputation: +7235/-2299
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #53 on: April 23, 2018, 04:50:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you see how they avoid mentioning their real belief, this Theo character must be the same guy that used the avatar of The Cure of Ars.

    Yeah, this could quite possibly be LoT again.  He's signed up under a couple different names over time.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14234
    • Reputation: +7235/-2299
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #54 on: April 23, 2018, 04:52:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • and restricting His ability to justify soul by requiring a created reality, upon which He is dependent.  Such an idea subjects the Creator to a creature - the infinite to a finite.

    Idiot.  WE are not restricting anything.  We're talking about the restrictions that God has placed on us, not the other way around, and understanding the conditions for salvation that He has laid down.  If God said that we could only be saved by smearing Jello Pudding on the tips of our noses, then we would be bound by that.

    Offline Green

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 2
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ludwig Ott implicitly refutes Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #55 on: April 25, 2018, 08:35:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • one is obliged to confess even when one is Perfectly Contrite and before recieving communion. baptism of desire doesnt confer the sacramental character 


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16