Author Topic: the desire thereof (Read 22950 times)

nadieimportante · « **Reply #175 on:** February 01, 2012, 07:35:53 AM »

Quote from: Augustinian

Your mangling of Scripture regarding Cornelius falls under the condemnation of Peter.

Do you believe Caiaphas the Christ-killing Pharisee was justified when the Holy Ghost descended upon him in John?

How about Balaam'a ass talking?

[21] Balaam arose in the morning, and saddling his ass went with them. [22] And God was angry. And an angel of the Lord stood in the way against Balaam, who sat on the ass, and had two servants with him. [Numbers 22:22] [Latin] [23] The ass seeing the angel standing in the way, with a drawn sword, turned herself out of the way, and went into the field. And when Balaam beat her, and had a mind to bring her again to the way, [24] The angel stood in a narrow place between two walls, wherewith the vineyards were enclosed. [25] And the ass seeing him, thrust herself close to the wall, and bruised the foot of the rider. But he beat her again:

[26] And nevertheless the angel going on to a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, stood to meet him. [27] And when the ass saw the angel standing, she fell under the feet of the rider: who being angry beat her sides more vehemently with a staff. [28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time? [29] Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee. [30] The ass said: Am not I thy beast, on which thou hast been always accustomed to ride until this present day? tell me if I ever did the like thing to thee. But he said: Never.

[28] Opened the mouth: The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam.

[31] Forthwith the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel standing in the way with a drawn sword, and he worshipped him falling flat on the ground. [32] And the angel said to him: Why beatest thou thy ass these three times? I am come to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse, and contrary to me: [33] And unless the ass had turned out of the way, giving place to me who stood against thee, I had slain thee, and she should have lived. [34] Balaam said: I have sinned, not knowing that thou didst stand against me: and now if it displease thee that I go, I will return. [35] The angel said: Go with these men, and see thou speak no other thing than what I shall command thee. He went therefore with the princes.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #176 on:** February 01, 2012, 10:06:23 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Nishant2011
Quote
You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over.

Heh. Charming as ever, aren't you? You must think I enjoy repeating myself, but I wouldn't have to, if you'd have answered the first time. And no, again you did not.

My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.

Quote
BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do

Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments.

When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.

You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water, but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost or that God is bound to the sacraments.

While I have no objection to discussing my difference of opinion with Cupertino if he wants it, maybe you should take your own advice, Nadie, and you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"

Because of his understanding, Gregory is forced to do violence to the text of St.Luke that talks about Cornelius. I take it as it is written. When St.Peter discoursed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and even the Passion and Resurrection, the Holy Ghost fell on his listeners in like measure as He had fallen on the Apostles. This is baptism of desire in the deposit of revelation.

So, come on guys, which is it?

Lol. Nishant, it is not doing violence to ANYTHING to acknowledge an ACTUAL grace, no matter how tremendous. Heck, I was told this by NOVUS ORDO traditionalist priests. Cornelius experienced an actual grace of the Holy Spirit. There was NOTHING to indicate that this was an occasion of either spiritual regeneration or an infusion of SANCTIFYING grace.

It's not gymnastics. ESPECIALLY not if Novus Ordites are teaching it...

The text does NOT claim what you want it to claim, i.e. that This occasion provided Cornelius with Formal Justification and Spiritual Regeneration. It was merely a sign of God's election and predestination.

I'd like to understand justification and Grace better than I do. I think this is an excellent illustration for that.

Nishant · « **Reply #177 on:** February 03, 2012, 06:08:05 AM »

The passage from St.Luke I'm afraid does indeed prove the point. Here's why. St.Peter, the first Pope, confirms this when he says "They have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" and "And God, who knows the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us" But what is your position other than the claim that those who desire baptism cannot receive the Holy Ghost just as baptized Christians can, even before the administering of the sacrament?

In very simple terms, it shows St.Peter believed in baptism of desire. The parallels with Balaam fail for this reason. And I don't agree that it was merely a Holy Ghost. St.Peter was comparing Cornelius to himself and other baptized Christians.

Nadie,

Quote

It makes a huge theological difference

I meant between the view of Doctors like St.Thomas and St.Alponsus (which you admit is not your view) and your own view. It makes no practical difference in distant lands where none of us know what happens anyway.

As for both "bound to the sacraments" and "meaningless question" and even anecdotal incidents, I've already shown you that St.Thomas quotes St.Ambrose and says Valentian died a catechumen but with the grace of the sacrament. So it is not meaningless and this is an incident of the kind you cite when the contrary is shown, and where God shows He is not bound to the sacraments, not in my understanding only, but in that of the Angelic Doctor as well. St.Thomas teaches this is a demonstration of His power as well, so your other objection is answered.

Finally, I've already mentioned this to be the view of even Hugh of St.Victor, St.Bernard, St.Robert Bellarmine. Gregory tells me it was St.Catherine of Sienna's view. Why would you side with Peter Abelard's view who was directly opposed on this over theirs, I wonder?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #178 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:39:29 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

The passage from St.Luke I'm afraid does indeed prove the point. Here's why. St.Peter, the first Pope, confirms this when he says "They have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" and "And God, who knows the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us" But what is your position other than the claim that those who desire baptism cannot receive the Holy Ghost just as baptized Christians can, even before the administering of the sacrament?

In very simple terms, it shows St.Peter believed in baptism of desire. St.Peter was comparing Cornelius to himself and other baptized Christians.

If EENSers used this type of "evidence", they'd be laughed out of the place.

Whether Cornelius was or was not justified before he was baptized is not "revealed" by this "sign". But, most importantly, Cornelius was baptized, he did not die justified and unbaptized as BOD is defined. This just shows the lack of real evidence that BODers have, that they have to stoop to using personal scripture interpretation, and a long stretch of a personal scripture interpretation at that.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #179 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:49:51 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

I've already shown you that St.Thomas quotes St.Ambrose and says Valentian died a catechumen but with the grace of the sacrament.

We can read the eulogy for Valentinian ourselves today, and analize it ourselves, and it is by no means clear. Secondly, we have St. Ambrose's clear teaching s against BOD, in fact, he is the biggest opponent of BOD. Anyone that quotes St. Ambrose as a proponent of BOD, does not have all the docuмentation we have available today.

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”