Author Topic: the desire thereof (Read 17738 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #15 on:** January 12, 2012, 05:52:29 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Slippery slope fallacy, huh?

Where'd you get that?

Belief in BoD makes inevitable belief in universal salvation and indifferentism.

That's a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy.

It doesn't surprise me that you resort to mockery, seeing as your position is totally threadbare.

Father Feeney put his opinion above that of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori because he was a crank. And people who intentionally misread the Council of Trent to pretend it doesn't allow for Baptism of Desire are cranks.

End of discussion.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2012, 05:55:19 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Slippery slope fallacy, huh?

Where'd you get that?

If you believe in BoD then it's inevitable that people believe in universal salvation and indifferentism.

It doesn't surprise me that you resort to mockery, seeing as your position is totally threadbare.

Father Feeney put himself above St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori because he was a crank. And people who intentionally misread the Council of Trent to pretend it doesn't allow for Baptism of Desire are cranks.

End of discussion.

You do exactly what you're accusing Father Feeney of doing all the time and you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy is.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #17 on:** January 12, 2012, 05:59:07 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

You do exactly what you're accusing Father Feeney of doing all the time

Okay. Way to be light on the specifics.

Quote

and you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy is.

In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction ([that is accepting baptism of desire) starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards)"(Baptism of Desire inevitably leads to the position of Avery Dulles)

How so?

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #18 on:** January 12, 2012, 06:02:27 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Augstine Baker
You do exactly what you're accusing Father Feeney of doing all the time

Okay. Way to be light on the specifics.

Quote
and you don't know what a slippery slope fallacy is.

In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction ([that is accepting baptism of desire) starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards)"(Baptism of Desire inevitably leads to the position of Avery Dulles)

How so?

Can "slippery slope" arguments be valid?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #19 on:** January 12, 2012, 06:05:50 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Can "slippery slope" arguments be valid?

It certainly isn't valid to say that accepting BoD leads to universal salvation.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #20 on:** January 12, 2012, 06:11:47 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Augstine Baker
Can "slippery slope" arguments be valid?

It certainly isn't valid to say that accepting BoD leads to universal salvation.

I don't think you really understand what "slippery slope" arguments are.

A slippery slope argument can not only be valid, but true as well if you can show the mechanism between the cause and the effect.

I suppose the mechanism in this case would be to refer to the work of Karl Rahner who did in fact use BoD to arrive at his thesis of the anonymous Christian.

In fact it was he who put the Guido Sarducci Letter http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm#a2 in the Enchiridion in the first place, and when he wasn't hanging out at Luise Rinser's flat at six in the morning, or being the darling of the secular and Masonic press, he was destroying the Faith of generations of students at the University of Tubingen, but that's what you might call a digression.

The Salvetti letter contains some of the same ambiguity you'll find in the Second Vatican Council we all love so well...

Actually, I don't care whether or not you accept any of the arguments that are being offered to you. I'm pretty sure you're a lost cause, but hopefully, other people might benefit from these discussions and come around to seeing that Father Leonard Feeney was a lion beset by lesser men like Archbishop Cushing and yourself.

The thought of someone like you calling Father Feeney a hack kind of brings me to examine my own verbiage. Do you think that calling the American Chesterton a "hack" helps your cause?

Augustinian · « **Reply #21 on:** January 12, 2012, 06:42:12 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

And people who intentionally misread the Council of Trent to pretend it doesn't allow for Baptism of Desire are cranks.

End of discussion.

You just called the vast majority of the theologians including Bellarmine cranks.

Quote from: Augustinian

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.

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

None of those believed that Trent taught Baptism of Desire. And all of them affirmed our understanding of the Council of Trent -- that fact that they were inconsistent with themselves in other places is another issue.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #22 on:** January 12, 2012, 06:47:12 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

I don't think you really understand what "slippery slope" arguments are.

I think you are deluding yourself about that, just as you are deluding yourself about the Council of Trent and what it says.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #23 on:** January 12, 2012, 06:49:11 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Do you think that calling the American Chesterton a "hack" helps your cause?

I think American trads put way too much stock in Chesterton and Father Feeney and way too little stock in St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori.

Gregory I · « **Reply #24 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:03:21 PM »

Actually, the correct understanding of Trent can be easily deduced by its Catechism, which is an AUTHENTIC and Authoritative interpreter of this Council, which nobody here is.

First, the section:

CHAPTER IV.
"A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

This is merely stating that the desire to receive baptism is a necessary disposition to receiving it. It is not directly related to baptism of desire.

Catechism of Trent, Section on Baptism:

Dispositions for Baptism

Intention

"The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken."

Faith

Besides a wish to be baptised, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Saviour has said: He that believes and is baptised shall be saved.

Clearly then one needs both the solemn intention to receive baptism in order to receive its grace, AND it needs to be coupled with faith in order to receive its grace.

SO it is not amazing that the council says what it does, it merely asserts the plain and the obvious: To be justified we need the grace of the sacrament. It (baptism) cannot be had without the necessary accompanying disposition: First, the desire to receive it, which implies faith.

If you read the council, it says that the justification cannot be effected WITHOUT baptism or the desire for it. They go together: Disposition and reception.

If a person is baptized without the will to receive baptism, the character on the soul is imprinted, but none of the graces take effect. Worse, if a person is baptized simply out of a desire to have fire insurance and without taking the sacrament seriously, it is a mortal sin of sacrilege. The waters that ought to save in this case actually condemn. If the person were to die after arising out of the baptismal font, blasphemously smug in having gotten his way, and he were killed on the spot, he would descend to Hell.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #25 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:11:12 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Augstine Baker
Can "slippery slope" arguments be valid?

It certainly isn't valid to say that accepting BoD leads to universal salvation.

Does hand communion lead to the denigration of faith in the Blessed Sacrament?

Gregory I · « **Reply #26 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:12:13 PM »

Augustinian, it is worth noting, that despite your penchant for theological notes, you have overlooked something:

A teaching DOES NOT have to be de fide for it to be a mortal sin to deny.

Sent. Fide Proxima:

(d) Theological Note:   Proximate to faith.
Explanation:    A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example:     Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition:   Proximate to error.
Effects of denial:   Mortal sin indirectly against faith.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

Better step carefully. I am not a fan of BOD. I admit it is plausible theoretically, but I have great difficulty with it.

However, we are also bound to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians, and I can name of 27 of them without batting an eyelash who definitely have taught BOD, and all before Vatican II.

I am very split on the BOD issue. I don't like it, I do not think it is de fide myself either, and it is a vague area.

BUT, we are also obliged to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians.

What do you do?

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #27 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:23:03 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Augustinian, it is worth noting, that despite your penchant for theological notes, you have overlooked something:

A teaching DOES NOT have to be de fide for it to be a mortal sin to deny.

Sent. Fide Proxima:

(d) Theological Note:   Proximate to faith.
Explanation:    A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example:     Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition:   Proximate to error.
Effects of denial:   Mortal sin indirectly against faith.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

Better step carefully. I am not a fan of BOD. I admit it is plausible theoretically, but I have great difficulty with it.

However, we are also bound to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians, and I can name of 27 of them without batting an eyelash who definitely have taught BOD, and all before Vatican II.

I am very split on the BOD issue. I don't like it, I do not think it is de fide myself either, and it is a vague area.

BUT, we are also obliged to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians.

What do you do?

That's Ott's opinion as to its level. Ott is good, one of the greatest theologians of the Twentieth Century and certainly he's not part of the problem, inmho, but he's not infallible, and neither is the Trent Catechism.

Gregory I · « **Reply #28 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:44:33 PM »

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Seems like it is dogmatically defined ex cathedra that Baptism, the Spirit and the Blood of Christ are inseparable. You cannot have sanctification and redemption in the blood without water.

Seems pretty clear, and it cannot be denied.

Augustinian · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:52:23 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Augustinian, it is worth noting, that despite your penchant for theological notes, you have overlooked something:

A teaching DOES NOT have to be de fide for it to be a mortal sin to deny.

Sent. Fide Proxima:

(d) Theological Note:   Proximate to faith.
Explanation:    A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example:     Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition:   Proximate to error.
Effects of denial:   Mortal sin indirectly against faith.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

Better step carefully. I am not a fan of BOD. I admit it is plausible theoretically, but I have great difficulty with it.

However, we are also bound to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians, and I can name of 27 of them without batting an eyelash who definitely have taught BOD, and all before Vatican II.

I am very split on the BOD issue. I don't like it, I do not think it is de fide myself either, and it is a vague area.

BUT, we are also obliged to follow the unanimous consent of the churches theologians.

What do you do?

That table of theological notes comes from a random 50's priest. That doesn't make it the teaching of the Church. Besides, the issue here isn't whether it's a regular mortal sin to deny Baptism of Desire (and of course it's far from a sin), it's whether or not the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire, making BoD heretical to deny. The Council of Trent clearly doesn't teach BoD, and the majority of theologians (who I have no faith in, but Telesphorus does, so that's why I point it out) agree that Trent doesn't teach BoD, otherwise they would have said that it was a dogma.

We are not bound to follow the unanimous consent of theologians. The Church never taught that. The docuмent that comes closest to teaching this is the fallible letter Tuas libenter, which doesn't say what some people think it says. It says we must adhere to the teachings of the Church that are "proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result" are held by theologians to be De Fide. It doesn't say that we must adhere to the unanimous consent of theologians, or that if the theologians all hold something to be De Fide then it therefore is De Fide. The only unanimous teachings of theologians we are obliged to adhere to are the unanimous teachings of the early church fathers.

But even if we were obliged to believe in the unanimous teachings of all the theologians, then we still wouldn't have to believe in Baptism of Desire, since the theologians are far from unanimous. Being unanimous or nearly unanimous since the Scholastic era does not constitute unanimity for all times, but only one period of time. Only two or three church fathers believed in BoD. St. Gregory of nαzιenzen, St. Fulgence, and St. Cyril all denied it.