Author Topic: the desire thereof (Read 17741 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #105 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:58:04 AM »

Quote

In order to even begin to make this case, you would have to provide Fathers who taught, "Baptism of desire is heretical" or the like.

Not at all. You only have to show the unanimous consensus of those who either deny it outright, or assert the absolute necessity of baptism for any at all to be saved.

For example. You have Seen the quotes of St. Gregory the Theologian, so you know he plainly ridiculed the position. He in fact said you might as well just desire heaven and get there on the basis of your own desire.

There others I have shown you from St. Augustine who flatly denies salvation to catechumens.

As does St. Ambrose.

As does St. John Chrysostom

These are clearly against the effectiveness of any DESIRE a catechumen may have to receive the sacrament. Heck, to be a catechumen is effectively synonymous with desiring baptism.

So really, that is put to bed. There are many more, but I won't bore you.

Quote

Likewise, on the other Fathers, you are talking about those who delay baptism through their own fault, which is sinful, and may indicate contempt of the sacrament. And, again, we have no right to presume God will use extraordinary means when it is in our power to use ordinary ones.

Not at all! Many fathers taught that regardless of ones desire or negligence, if they don't get baptized, they won't be saved.

POPE ST. SIRICIUS (384‐398)
In his letter to the Bishop of Tarragona in the year 385, Pope St. Siricius also showshow the belief in the early Church rejected any concept of baptism of desire.

“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time
should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that
infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those
who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism,
be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who
leave this world should be deprived of the life of the
Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation
which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If
those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or
the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless
condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their
faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of
their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough
of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the
aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the
solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal
Church.”

In other words: "When they want it, especially in hopeless and dangerous situations, don't waste time, baptize them!"

Why? " for fear that, if those who
leave this world should be deprived of the life of the
Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation
which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls."

Desire wasn't on this Popes mind. Even in desperate circuмstances he taught no BOD.

Quote

And like I said, we essentially disagree on what is the proximate rule of Faith, including what constitutes the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope.

No, I hold to the Church's teaching. The proximate rule of faith is found in the magisterial teaching of the church, in her docuмents. In the acts of the councils, and in the proclamations of popes Ex Cathedra, AND in those papal proclamations that declare a thing to be revealed by GOD. The magisterial docuмents are the proximate rule of faith.

Scripture and tradition are remote sources of faith.

However, you need to know what the church teaches on the unanimous consent of the Fathers:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870:
“… We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters
of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must
be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church
has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true
understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason,
no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

Now, consider what is taught Unanimously, as declared by the Catechism, which is a COMPENDIUM of the proximate sources of faith expounded:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s
Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the
Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and
teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be
saved.”

So all who are to be saved, are OBLIGED under the commandment of God to be baptized.

And guess what Trent taught?

That God does not command impossibilities. Therefore all who are to be saved are truly obliged to be baptized, and they infallibly WILL be baptized if they will be saved.

For God does not command impossibilities.

For this reason, it seems that BOD issues from a heart that has no faith in God and no confidence in his providence.

In closing, I offer a challenge:

Show me one encyclical where a Pope teaches that BOD is a TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD.

Not where he mentions it in passing;

Where he teaches that it is revealed as a truth. (FYI, it doesn't exist, just a heads up).

nadieimportante · « **Reply #106 on:** January 22, 2012, 12:59:12 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Quote from: nadieimportante
Quote from: Nishant2011
Gregory,

Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?

Well, I believe I answered that above.

Quote

I hold the view of what I believe was Pope Pius IX's teaching, about the internal enlightenment given by God Himself of those necessary truths that are contained in the articles of the Creed, like at least the Trinity and Incarnation, since the knoweldge of Him is what in fact salvation consists of, according to the word of Our Lord, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent"

You hold the view of what You believe was Pope Pius IX's teaching?

What "you believe was the view", can be wrong. Why don't you just post what he said directly?

By what you wrote you have not answerd my question.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #107 on:** January 22, 2012, 01:36:49 AM »

Never before has so much wishful thinking and needless speculation mutated into a stealth heresy.

Gregory I · « **Reply #108 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:01:13 AM »

That confuses me. Against BOD? Or for it?

Augustinian · « **Reply #109 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:03:44 AM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Never before has so much wishful thinking and needless speculation mutated into a stealth heresy.

They used to speculate a lot in the East:

Marcion
Montanus
Tatian
Origen
Sabellius
Paul of Samosata
Arius
Nestorius
Macedonius
Evagrius
Theodorus
Eutyches

Just some harmless speculation.

Augustinian · « **Reply #110 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:05:49 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

That confuses me. Against BOD? Or for it?

He's saying that the needless speculations of BoD believers has been mutilated into a heresy.

Nishant · « **Reply #111 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:27:32 AM »

Nadie,

Quote

Why don't you just post what he said directly?

Actually, I've already done that, and in this thread no less.

Quote

By what you wrote you have not answerd my question.

Actually I did answer it exactly, since your question was about what I believed.

If you want me to prove that Pope Pius IX's authority should settle the question again, I will.

Gregory,

Quote

These are clearly against the effectiveness of any DESIRE a catechumen may have to receive the sacrament. Heck, to be a catechumen is effectively synonymous with desiring baptism.

Not quite. Only a desire that is "active in charity" or one joined to perfect contrition in other words, avails justifying grace. I've already shown plenty of Scriptural support for this. You also didn't answer me about the teachings quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, from Pope Innocent III and finally, about St.Thomas' use of St.Augustine and St.Ambrose. Clearly, he disagreed with you about what was the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Quote

In other words: "When they want it, especially in hopeless and dangerous situations, don't waste time, baptize them!"

Of course, because to do otherwise suggests negligence on the part of the priest or bishop, which may indicate contempt of the sacrament, by who is supposed to do the baptizing here. St.Thomas treats this situation as well, saying in danger of death, anyone should be baptized. So again someone who believes in BOD can consistently hold this position as well.

Finally, like I said before, this is the practice of the Church, to delay baptism for a just period for catechesis and instruction, during which time some accident unknown to the Church can happen, and the practice of the Church in any age cannot be directly harmful to souls. Therefore this practice of the Church proves that BOD is de Fide.

Quote

The proximate rule of faith is found in the magisterial teaching of the church, in her docuмents

Completely untrue. You insist on reducing the Church to a dead letter. Christ did not say, "He who reads what you have written, reads what I have written" but most simply "He who hears you hears Me"

Quote

Therefore all who are to be saved are truly obliged to be baptized, and they infallibly WILL be baptized if they will be saved.

Yes, but not necessarily by water, nor by men, if God so wills.

Quote

For this reason, it seems that BOD issues from a heart that has no faith in God and no confidence in his providence.

On the contrary, as Thomas Kempis says, and as Pope Pius says, it should suffice for the faithful and humble soul not to inquire into the hidden ways of God, and to know as St.Thomas says, that God shows His power in that He is in no way bound to the visible sacraments, though He has bound us to them.

Quote

In closing, I offer a challenge:

Show me one encyclical where a Pope teaches that BOD is a TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD.

Both Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII satisfy this as regards ordinary teaching authority which comes from God. Pope Pius XII also once and for all settled the question when the Holy Office under him dealt with the dispute when it arose.

Again, only those who doubt what Christ said, briefly, "If anyone refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be like a heathen and tax collector", again emphasizing that when Christ teaches us through His Church will doubt that the question is closed for all time.

For you to argue otherwise is like Jansenists have argued, when they were condemned, and when the Pope insisted he had the authority to condemn them, they argued he did not.

Augustinian · « **Reply #112 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:32:41 AM »

Nishant2011, do you accept the teachings of Vatican II?

Nishant · « **Reply #113 on:** January 22, 2012, 02:34:32 AM »

Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.

Gregory I · « **Reply #114 on:** January 22, 2012, 09:58:45 AM »

Quote

Nadie,

Quote
Why don't you just post what he said directly?

Actually, I've already done that, and in this thread no less.

Quote
By what you wrote you have not answerd my question.

Actually I did answer it exactly, since your question was about what I believed.

If you want me to prove that Pope Pius IX's authority should settle the question again, I will.

Gregory,

Quote

These are clearly against the effectiveness of any DESIRE a catechumen may have to receive the sacrament. Heck, to be a catechumen is effectively synonymous with desiring baptism.

Quote

Not quite. Only a desire that is "active in charity" or one joined to perfect contrition in other words, avails justifying grace. I've already shown plenty of Scriptural support for this. You also didn't answer me about the teachings quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, from Pope Innocent III and finally, about St.Thomas' use of St.Augustine and St.Ambrose. Clearly, he disagreed with you about what was the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

He was wrong. Ambrose and Augustine both contradict St. Thomas's understanding in other works. Therefore, St. THomas's understanding, like St. Bernard's is based on an imperfect availability of the Fathers.

Quote

In other words: "When they want it, especially in hopeless and dangerous situations, don't waste time, baptize them!"

Quote

Of course, because to do otherwise suggests negligence on the part of the priest or bishop, which may indicate contempt of the sacrament, by who is supposed to do the baptizing here. St.Thomas treats this situation as well, saying in danger of death, anyone should be baptized. So again someone who believes in BOD can consistently hold this position as well.

No. The Point is that the Pope did not consider their desire to receive it as sufficient to justify them, regardless of their circuмstances.

Quote

Finally, like I said before, this is the practice of the Church, to delay baptism for a just period for catechesis and instruction, during which time some accident unknown to the Church can happen, and the practice of the Church in any age cannot be directly harmful to souls. Therefore this practice of the Church proves that BOD is de Fide.

NO, that is an illogical and irrational stretch. of course the church's universal practice is to catechize first. But you would have to be blind to seriously think that practice substantiates BOD. Much less makes it de fide!

Quote

The proximate rule of faith is found in the magisterial teaching of the church, in her docuмents

Quote

Completely untrue. You insist on reducing the Church to a dead letter. Christ did not say, "He who reads what you have written, reads what I have written" but most simply "He who hears you hears Me"

okay, then listen to Dr. Ludwig Van Ott. In Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

A Science of Faith
"Theology is a science of faith. It is concerned with faith in the objective sense (fides quae creditur) that which is believed, and in the subjective sense (fides qua creditur) that by which we believe. Theology like faith accepts, as the sources of its knowledge, Holy Writ and Tradition (remote rule of faith) and also the doctrinal assertions of the Church (proximate rule of faith)."

Quote

Therefore all who are to be saved are truly obliged to be baptized, and they infallibly WILL be baptized if they will be saved.

Quote

Yes, but not necessarily by water, nor by men, if God so wills.

This is heresy. There is only ONE baptism, celebrated in water ALONE.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra:
“Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized
in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God
and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we
believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for
adults as for children.”

Again, the Council of Trent has condemned those who make the words of our Lord into some sort of metaphor, which is what BOD'ers claim:

COT Session 7, On Baptism, Canon II:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

In other words, you have no choice but to take it in a clear and literal fashion, and that it pertains to sacramental WATER baptism alone, which is the only kind of real baptism there is, DE FIDE.

Quote

For this reason, it seems that BOD issues from a heart that has no faith in God and no confidence in his providence.

Quote

On the contrary, as Thomas Kempis says, and as Pope Pius says, it should suffice for the faithful and humble soul not to inquire into the hidden ways of God, and to know as St.Thomas says, that God shows His power in that He is in no way bound to the visible sacraments, though He has bound us to them.

Exactly, like speculating about BOD.

Quote

In closing, I offer a challenge:

Show me one encyclical where a Pope teaches that BOD is a TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD.

Quote

Both Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII satisfy this as regards ordinary teaching authority which comes from God. Pope Pius XII also once and for all settled the question when the Holy Office under him dealt with the dispute when it arose.

I would like to see you quote it if you don't mind. I am looking for the idea that it is taught as something REVEALED BY GOD.

Quote

Again, only those who doubt what Christ said, briefly, "If anyone refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be like a heathen and tax collector", again emphasizing that when Christ teaches us through His Church will doubt that the question is closed for all time.

Undoubtedly. Yet only simpletons would think that the opinion of a few constitutes the teaching of the whole. THis confusion is what ensnares so many.

Quote

For you to argue otherwise is like Jansenists have argued, when they were condemned, and when the Pope insisted he had the authority to condemn them, they argued he did not.

False. The situation is not a parallel. Firstly, THERE WERE PAPAL DOcuмENTS CLEARLY CONDEMNING THE IDEAS. Secondly, they were Gallicans, I am an ultramontane. I take what the Popes teach in their ordinary magisterial capacity seriously, both for what that teaching is, AND what it is NOT.

There aren't any here that teach BOD is revealed by God. Nor are there any Fathers, nor are there theologians who UNANIMOUSLY teach such. Nor are there any popes.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #115 on:** January 22, 2012, 10:09:09 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.

You mean you accept Vatican II?

Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism part, Dimond Sedes excluded.

To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.

Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall? You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion. They're sectarians.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #116 on:** January 22, 2012, 05:42:52 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Nishant2011
Gregory,

Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved, by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith"?

Dear Nishant2011:

This is an important question, it's foundational to the discussion, why are you not just answering it? You don't actually expect me to do the work of searching everything, the Labyrinth that you've laid out here?

It's easier just to keep asking.

Augustinian · « **Reply #117 on:** January 22, 2012, 07:18:36 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.

It is relevant, since your 'Living Magisterium' teaches that Muslims worship the true God and that non-Catholics can receive Holy Communion.

Do you accept those teachings?

Augustinian · « **Reply #118 on:** January 22, 2012, 07:24:14 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Nishant2011
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.

You mean you accept Vatican II?

Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism part, Dimond Sedes excluded.

To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.

Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall? You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion. They're sectarians.

The Vatican II church is the most notoriously unique sectarian church in the world. Within it are many sects, including people who claim to believe the papacy, people who outright reject the papacy, people who believe in justification by faith alone, people who reject faith alone, people who reject the filioque and purgatory, people who embrace the filioque and purgatory, people who reject EENS, people who believe EENS is a dogma, people who are pro-abortion, people who are anti-abortion...

To me it just looks like indifferentist apostasy and a One World Church made up of various contradictory sects.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #119 on:** January 22, 2012, 07:26:41 PM »

Quote from: Augustinian

Quote from: Augstine Baker
Quote from: Nishant2011
Augustinian, your question isn't relevant, but the answer is, I incline to the FSSP view.

You mean you accept Vatican II?

Most Sedes reject everything about Vatican II, except for the religious indifferentism part, Dimond Sedes excluded.

To me it just looks like American consumerism and a trip to the Old Country Buffet.

Has anyone noticed that "Pope" Micheal seems like a very sincere evangelical pastor who's opened up a church in a strip mall? You might say that it's his accent, but no, I think it goes beyond that, I think he and a lot of traditionalists participate in an archetypal American approach to religion. They're sectarians.

The Vatican II church is the most notoriously unique sectarian church in the world. Within it are many sects, including people who claim to believe the papacy, people who outright reject the papacy, people who believe in justification by faith alone, people who reject faith alone, people who reject the filioque and purgatory, people who embrace the filioque and purgatory, people who reject EENS, people who believe EENS is a dogma, people who are pro-abortion, people who are anti-abortion...

To me it just looks like indifferentist apostasy and a One World Church made up of various contradictory sects.

The gates of Hell have prevailed?