Author Topic: the desire thereof (Read 19210 times)

Augustinian · « **Reply #10 on:** January 12, 2012, 11:01:36 AM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Augustinian
I'm still waiting to know why Telesphorsus is in opposition to the majority of theologians, since according to him we have to follow their teachings.

You mean the ones who were denying the Immaculate Conception?

The ones who didn't believe Trent taught Baptism of Desire:

Quote from: Augustinian

Not all the theologians even agree with your false understanding of the Council of Trent.

Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau: "The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith."

Ludwig Ott: ""In case of emergency, baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism of blood." (Sent. fidei prox.)"

Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau and Ludwig Ott both deny that BOD is De Fide. If BOD was taught by the Council of Trent, then it would be De Fide.

According to a traditionalist priest (who believes strongly in Baptism of Desire) and according to his studies, he found also that the following Post-Trent theologians did not teach that Baptism of Desire was De Fide:

Fr. Joseph Aertnys
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach
Fr. Marin-Sola
Fr. Tanquerey
Fr. Clarence McAuliffe
Fr. Felix Cappello
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
And about a dozen others.

About 7, including Liguori, believed it was De Fide. That's approximately 20 against it being De Fide, and only 7 who believed it was De Fide.

Original Post:

Quote from: Augustinian
Quote from: Telesphorus

St. Alphonsus says it is de fide that there are those who have been saved by Baptism of Desire.

Bellarmine (who was also canonized and made a Doctor) said that Geocentrism was De Fide. The Holy Office believed it was De Fide. All the theologians up until Copernicus believed in it, especially the Scholastics. All the early fathers believed in Geocentrism as a matter of faith coming directly from the scriptures. Do you accept Geocentrism as being De Fide? I do. But do you? If not, why not? There's a much greater case for Geocentrism than there is for Baptism of Desire.

Since you put your faith in the theologians, how many theologians taught that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, and how many didn't believe that was the case? So far you brought forth one who said it was De Fide based on the Council of Trent.

Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau: "The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith."

Ludwig Ott: ""In case of emergency, baptism by water can be replaced by baptism of desire or baptism of blood." (Sent. fidei prox.)"

According to a traditionalist priest (who believes strongly in Baptism of Desire) and according to his studies, he found also that the following Post-Trent theologians did not teach that Baptism of Desire was De Fide:

Fr. Joseph Aertnys
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach
Fr. Marin-Sola
Fr. Tanquerey
Fr. Clarence McAuliffe
Fr. Felix Cappello
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine

And about a dozen others.

About 7, including Liguori, believed in was De Fide. That's approximately 20 against it being De Fide, and 7 who believe it is De Fide.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17148&f=4&min=90&num=10

Nishant · « **Reply #11 on:** January 12, 2012, 01:51:48 PM »

But how can you attack something that is deemed at the least "proximate to the Faith" by several theologians and de Fide by some others as if it were heretical? This is the real issue - even if it is not dogma, it is by no means heretical, and those who agree with Fr.Feeney sometimes seem to treat it as such.

Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, but it produces the fruits of the sacrament, which include the transition to new birth, as Trent says, and therefore necessarily incorporation into the Church. Just like with penance and perfect contrition, the virtue is not considered apart from the sacrament, but nonetheless immediately effects reconciliation.

It is not possible to argue that a man who thus receives the new birth and sanctifying grace still remains strictly outside the Church, for there is no such grace given outside her. He is mystically united to the soul of the Church, the Holy Spirit, and is consequently on the way to salvation.

Nor is it reasonable to say that a man who dies in the state of grace is lost, because this is impossible. He who dies in the state of grace is saved as surely as he who dies without it is lost.

What is legitimate to believe, although one cannot condemn the opposite opinion, is that to all wayfarers who do receive such saving grace during their lives, the visible ark of salvation will eventually, through the ways of Providence, make her way, so that they may visibly enter it.

Also, a just consideration will show that we can have, as we are taught, no "good hope" for the salvation of non-Catholics, even if they do receive grace, for as any Catholic can testify, there remain abundant opportunities in this fallen world to lose that grace, as Pope Pius XII also taught, there are superabundant helps that can be had only in the visible body. And is it seriously to be hoped that a man can truly love a God of whom He knows but little, or who is presented in such a false sense as in other religions? And if he does, then he will receive the good news that God sent His Son into the world to die for his sins, with gladness.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #12 on:** January 12, 2012, 03:51:57 PM »

Quote

But how can you attack something that is deemed at the least "proximate to the Faith" by several theologians and de Fide by some others as if it were heretical?

Because it leads to this:

Quote

Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.,

If the clear dogmas on EENS can be twisted to mean that one can be saved outside of the Body, then all dogmas are up for grabs. Hence where we are today. Vatican II did not fall from the sky, those "theologians" learned how to manipulte dogma long before.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** January 12, 2012, 05:42:50 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote
But how can you attack something that is deemed at the least "proximate to the Faith" by several theologians and de Fide by some others as if it were heretical?

Because it leads to this:

Quote
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.,

If the clear dogmas on EENS can be twisted to mean that one can be saved outside of the Body, then all dogmas are up for grabs. Hence where we are today. Vatican II did not fall from the sky, those "theologians" learned how to manipulte dogma long before.

That's a slippery slope fallacy. Another ridiculous thing that's often claimed is that Vatican II is a result of accepting BoD. Lunacy.

There's no reasoning with such people. Nishant's post is pearls before swine.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #14 on:** January 12, 2012, 05:49:04 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: nadieimportante
Quote
But how can you attack something that is deemed at the least "proximate to the Faith" by several theologians and de Fide by some others as if it were heretical?

Because it leads to this:

Quote
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.,

If the clear dogmas on EENS can be twisted to mean that one can be saved outside of the Body, then all dogmas are up for grabs. Hence where we are today. Vatican II did not fall from the sky, those "theologians" learned how to manipulte dogma long before.

That's a slippery slope fallacy. Another ridiculous thing that's often claimed is that Vatican II is a result of accepting BoD. Lunacy.

There's no reasoning with such people. Nishant's post is pearls before swine.

Slippery slope fallacy, huh?

Where'd you get that?