Author Topic: Father Cekada Dying (Read 12851 times)

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #95 on:** September 14, 2020, 11:06:42 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on September 14, 2020, 09:25:07 AM

I tend to think they're just quasi laypeople who jumped on the plain meaning of Florence and all the dogmas on EENS and decided to anathematize everyone over it.

There that's more precise. The writer just admitted himself the what the Dimond's believe are just the dogmas on EENS as they are written.

He on the other hand must have someone to interpret them according to his desires.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #96 on:** September 14, 2020, 11:18:35 AM »

Well, the important distinction here is between EENS and between BoD. Where the Dimonds cross the line is in declaring any belief in BoD, even if it's the version held by St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert Bellarmine to be heretical. I don't believe in BoD and I disagree with these saints, but to hold that the Church declared Doctors of the Church three men who taught heresy is too much of a stretch. In fact, it's clear that the Church has long tolerated a belief in a Baptism of Desire. But, contrary to what the BoD theorists hold, it's equally clear that the Church has never defined anything about BoD, nor can the Church positively defined a BoD, since it's obviously rooted in nothing more than sheer speculation. There's no evidence whatsoever that BoD is part of the Deposit of Revelation.

With that said, however, a belief in a BoD for those catechumens or catechumen-like souls who actually have accepted the Catholic faith and intend to become Catholic is not fatal to EENS. What's fatal to EENS is when BoD gets extended to those who have nothing even resembling the Catholic faith, to anyone of sincerity and "good will". St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert Bellarmine taught no such thing, but the BoD proponents constantly imply that they did.

In any case, when the Dimonds denounce as heretics those who hold even a very limited notion of BoD, they cross the line into schism, because they consider to be outside the Church those whom the Church never has.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #97 on:** September 14, 2020, 11:30:06 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 14, 2020, 11:18:35 AM

Well, the important distinction here is between EENS and between BoD. Where the Dimonds cross the line is in declaring any belief in BoD, even if it's the version held by St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert Bellarmine to be heretical. I don't believe in BoD and I disagree with these saints, but to hold that the Church declared Doctors of the Church three men who taught heresy is too much of a stretch. In fact, it's clear that the Church has long tolerated a belief in a Baptism of Desire. But, contrary to what the BoD theorists hold, it's equally clear that the Church has never defined anything about BoD, nor can the Church positively defined a BoD, since it's obviously rooted in nothing more than sheer speculation. There's no evidence whatsoever that BoD is part of the Deposit of Revelation.

With that said, however, a belief in a BoD for those catechumens or catechumen-like souls who actually have accepted the Catholic faith and intend to become Catholic is not fatal to EENS. What's fatal to EENS is when BoD gets extended to those who have nothing even resembling the Catholic faith, to anyone of sincerity and "good will". St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and St. Robert Bellarmine taught no such thing, but the BoD proponents constantly imply that they did.

In any case, when the Dimonds denounce as heretics those who hold even a very limited notion of BoD, they cross the line into schism, because they consider to be outside the Church those whom the Church never has.

Baptism of desire is de fide (St. Alphonsus):

"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”- Moral Theology Book 6.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #98 on:** September 14, 2020, 11:44:45 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 14, 2020, 11:30:06 AM

Baptism of desire is de fide (St. Alphonsus):

"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”- Moral Theology Book 6.

Another example of a writer that can't accept the dogmas on EENS as they are written, and therefore must seek someone to interpret them according to his desires. That is the difference, the strict EENSers believe the dogmas as they are written, the others refuse to accept them as they are written and seek teachers according to their own desires, quoting say St. Thomas Aquinas when he agrees, and throwing him under the bus when he does not. They are like Protestants, each one has his own individual belief, you never know who they believe can be saved where the rubber meets the road. A waste of time to debate with them on the matter because they themselves do not know what they believe, the only thing they have in common is that they do not believe in the dogmas on EENS as they are written.

LeDeg · « **Reply #99 on:** September 14, 2020, 12:17:51 PM »

Sean, the 'de fide' from St Alphonsus defense doesn't work.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, 1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “…St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide [on unbaptized infants suffering the fires of hell]...”

St. Cyprian, 254 A.D.: “We… judging and holding it as certain that no one beyond the pale [that is, outside the Church] is able to be baptized…”

Even the go to defender amongst the SSPX stated:

Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 43: “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.”

That is not 'de fide'.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Father Cekada Dying (Read 12851 times)

Last Tradhican

Re: Father Cekada Dying

Ladislaus

Re: Father Cekada Dying

SeanJohnson

Re: Father Cekada Dying

Last Tradhican

Re: Father Cekada Dying

LeDeg

Re: Father Cekada Dying