CathInfo.com

The big question is, what would you do if you thought you were going to die and "desired" your own Baptism... but then you recovered and lived?

Would you need a conditional Baptism ?

Or would you be "good to go" ?   :thinking:

Members of the school of imaginary theology cannot be bothered to concern themselves with such questions...They are too busy working on rewriting the Creeds, "I confess 4 baptisms for the remission of sins." "Whosoever will be saved must have an implicit faith in a God who rewards the good and punishes the bad."

As I studied logic "ad hominem" attacks were always the proof that the one disputing had the weaker case. I have shown authority after authority - your argument is with them not with me. If you reject their authority, then you are right: cuм negante principia nequit disputare.

With all do respect sir and sorry its a bit off topic but,
"ad hominem" attacks are used to end a debate, not necessarily because you have the weaker argument. Christ used them several times (the Pharisees were whitewashed tombs or some were called hypocrites) to silence His opposition when doing so was to the benefit of any observers of the debate. I know its typical of a liberal to stifle debate using them but "ad hominem" attacks are in and of themselves not wrong or indicative of a weaker argument and can be used charitably when one considers who else may be hearing or reading the debate.

Thank you and God bless,
JoeZ

I might soon regret this, but I'm wading in with a linguistic point-of-view, not a theological one per se:

ut sumamus verbum confuse, id est si intendit facere quod consuevit Ecclesia.

Where "consuēvit" (from "consuesc·o, -ere") is an intransitive verb meaning "(she) has been accustomed", the pronoun referring to "Ecclesia", meaning the "(One True) Church", used with the infinitive "facere", meaning "to do" or "to perform".

The formula "an intention of doing what the Church does" was used already around the year 1231 by Gulielmus Altissiodorensis who explains it in this way saying: "that we take the word confusedly, that is, if he intends to do what the Church is wont to do."[**]

Perhaps there are some readers who've been misled by the crucial word "wont", by assuming that it's some strongly conjugated tense of "to want" in quaint English, expressing "want" in its sense of internal or mental desire, i.e., loosely the modern-English meaning of "intention".   But it's not!   Instead, the crucial word is an adjective and weakly conjugated verb meaning "to be accustomed".

So that clarifies the English to a more readily understood meaning:

"[...] if he intends to do what the Church is accustomed to doing."

Or more loosely, "[...] what the Church usually does."   Not "wants"; not "desires".

It seems to me that the adverb "confūsē" does not refer to the hypothetical heretic or pagan amateur baptist, but to the "we" of potentially confused theologian readers of the multivolume work

• .

-------
Note *: Cited (in <#p86>) above as Sacrae Theologiae Summa - De Sacramentis  Vol 4, P. Josepho de Aldama S.J., BAC, [i.e.: Biblioteca de Auctores Cristianos: (Madrid?) Spain], 1962. p. 76.

Note **: Cited (in <#p86>) above as Sacrae Theologiae Summa - On the Sacraments in General  Vol. 7 [a.k.a. "4-A"], Rev. Kenneth Baker S.J. trans., Keep The Faith [Inc.], 2015. p. 87.

Note #: Publication in 8-vol. translation to English announced at least as early as 2016: <http://novusordowatch.org/2016/08/sacrae-theologiae-summa-dogmatic-theology/>.