Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Matthew on February 08, 2024, 12:05:56 PM
-
Baptism of Blood and of Desire
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“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.”
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”
4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another… If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).
5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
- Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
- That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
- A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated… and expressed his intention to be baptized… Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”
7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic… The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”
9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa”(Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).
10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quidem, 1856:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II – 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:
- “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
- “Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
- “Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire… both cause sanctifying grace. …Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment…”
15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
- “Baptism of Desire… is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition…”
- “These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
- “…Even an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith….”
16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).
17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.
18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II,1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; …but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).
19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV – 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.
20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation…
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water… Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).
21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II),Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected…
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)…; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/baptism-of-blood-and-of-desire/
-
That article sums up my position on the issue.
-
Sure, an article by the CMRI who also twice published an article "The Salvation of those Outside the Church", verbatim contradicting dogma. That treatment is completely one-sided, not presenting any of the contrary evidence (of which there's mountains), and taking what they use often out of context. It has all the hallmarks of someone with an agenda who only present a small part of the full story that support their pre-determined agenda.
At the end of the day, the Church has not condemned BoB/BoD per se, not directly, and people are entitled to believe in it.
At the same time, though, 95%+ of Trads simply use BoD as an excuse to get non-Catholics "saved", whereas in its original understanding it had no such extension. They could hardly care less about the rare case of a catechumen who might die two weeks before his Baptism, but about getting all manner of Prot, infidel, heretic, schismatic, and non-Catholic saved.
At that point, you need to just stop pretending to be a Trad because ALL of Vatican II rests upon that ecclesiology.
-
My position is very simple:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation I leave to the skeptics." - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life
-
My position is very simple:
"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed,
Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation I leave to the skeptics." - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life
.
This is a fallacy. Actually, I see this fallacy constantly on this forum, people trying to shift the question from what DOES happen to what CAN happen.
The question here is: What happens to someone who sheds their blood and dies for Christ before receiving baptism, with the Catholic Faith?
The Church answer this question through her ordinary teaching and practice, that such a person is still a martyr and is in fact baptized with his blood.
You (and Mr. Feeney) are answering a different question. The question you are answering is, "Is God able to secure baptism for someone who is unbaptized and about to die?" And of course the answer to that question is that God can do whatever He wants, but that's not the question that was asked or the one that the Church answered.
-
This is a fallacy. Actually, I see this fallacy constantly on this forum, people trying to shift the question from what DOES happen to what CAN happen.
What you call a fallacy, we Catholics call Divine Providence. Unless of course you can come up with a situation that God would find impossible to provide the sacrament that He Himself made necessary for salvation.(See John 3:5)
The question here is: What happens to someone who sheds their blood and dies for Christ before receiving baptism, with the Catholic Faith?
The Church answer this question through her ordinary teaching and practice, that such a person is still a martyr and is in fact baptized with his blood.
Seems someone is wrong. This is dogma:
No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence--Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
"I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death
as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again
– he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by
water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good fight and preserves the Faith." - Father Feeney
You (and Mr. Feeney) are answering a different question. The question you are answering is, "Is God able to secure baptism for someone who is unbaptized and about to die?" And of course the answer to that question is that God can do whatever He wants, but that's not the question that was asked or the one that the Church answered.
MR Feeney? I'm sorry for you.
No, you ask and answer the wrong question, which is; Why would God not provide the sacrament He made necessary to one who sincerely desires it?
Too much trouble? He's too busy with other more pressing things? They guy's presumed good intention is plenty good enough?
-
"If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ." Trent Session5 Chapter3 (Emphasis mine)
Assuming we agree on the first part (ie, the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary) those who hold BOD/BOB must state that people saved by BOD/BOB were saved by Jesus Christ but the merit of Jesus Christ was not "applied by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church". That position is anathema.
BOD/BOB have no form defined by the Church.
BOD/BOB don't have a minister to "rightly administer" them (no intent to do what the Church does).
BOD/BOB have no ritual defined to "rightly administer".
"As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ" excludes all the unbaptized from Christ's merit.
I pray I've helped here,
JoeZ
-
"If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ." Trent Session5 Chapter3 (Emphasis mine)
Assuming we agree on the first part (ie, the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary) those who hold BOD/BOB must state that people saved by BOD/BOB were saved by Jesus Christ but the merit of Jesus Christ was not "applied by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church". That position is anathema.
BOD/BOB have no form defined by the Church.
BOD/BOB don't have a minister to "rightly administer" them (no intent to do what the Church does).
BOD/BOB have no ritual defined to "rightly administer".
"As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ" excludes all the unbaptized from Christ's merit.
I pray I've helped here,
JoeZ
Dear JoeZ,
Yes this is a great help. What happens when this position is anathema? What happens to the people who hold that position?
-
Baptism of Blood and of Desire
From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church
1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”
Decree on Justification (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”
2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):
“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.”
3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)
“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.”
4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another… If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).
5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
- Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
- That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
- A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
6. ST. AMBROSE
“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated… and expressed his intention to be baptized… Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”
7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God
“I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic… The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit” (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
8. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
“I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”
9. ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, Doctor of the Church (1542-1621)
Liber II, Caput XXX:
“Boni Catehecuмeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa”(Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).
10. Roman Martyrology
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.
11. POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878) — Singulari Quidem, 1856:
174. “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) all we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins divine mercy with divine justice.”
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863):
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepare to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
12. POPE PIUS XII (1939-1958) — Mystical Body of Christ (June 29, 1943):
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”
13. FR. A. TANQUERY, Dogmatic Brevior; ART. IV, Section I, II – 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the Unity offers, the obligation remains on
one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
14. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:
- “Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
- “Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
- “Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire… both cause sanctifying grace. …Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment…”
15. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:
- “Baptism of Desire… is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition…”
- “These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
- “…Even an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith….”
16. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).
17. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.
18. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II,1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; …but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).
19. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV – 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.
20. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation…
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water… Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).
21. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II),Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected…
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)…; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation.
https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/baptism-of-blood-and-of-desire/
This garbage has been debunked numerous times, even I quickly did so a while back. I am not going to bother doing it all again. Catholics should simply accept what the Church teaches as if they were small children not questioning their parents.
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of Florence
"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943.
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
The 2 bold lines should be enough for any Catholic to see that baptism of blood is false. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together. It does not matter if xyz saint fallibly taught BoB, the Saint says game goes both ways. What matters is that the Church has spoken, we should simply accept it as it is.
-
.
This is a fallacy. Actually, I see this fallacy constantly on this forum, people trying to shift the question from what DOES happen to what CAN happen.
The question here is: What happens to someone who sheds their blood and dies for Christ before receiving baptism, with the Catholic Faith?
The Church answer this question through her ordinary teaching and practice, that such a person is still a martyr and is in fact baptized with his blood.
You (and Mr. Feeney) are answering a different question. The question you are answering is, "Is God able to secure baptism for someone who is unbaptized and about to die?" And of course the answer to that question is that God can do whatever He wants, but that's not the question that was asked or the one that the Church answered.
Psalm 77
18 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=77&l=18-#x)And they tempted God in their hearts, by asking meat for their desires. 19 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=77&l=19-#x)And they spoke ill of God: they said: Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? 20 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=77&l=20-#x)Because he struck the rock, and the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed. Can he also give bread, or provide a table for his people?
21 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=77&l=21-#x)Therefore the Lord heard, and was angry: and a fire was kindled against Jacob, and wrath came up against Israel. 22 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=77&l=22-#x)Because they believed not in God: and trusted not in his salvation.
Can God provide baptism for His elect? I certainly believe so. He Himself said it was required to enter heaven. Don't forget that John:3:5 was in response to people like yourself who doubted the words of Christ the first time.
Nothing is impossible for God, His elect will receive water baptism, it is more outrageous to suggest that people can circuмvent God's own decree for baptism and that God cannot provide and that man's will (desire) will suffice, BoD is borderline if not outright paganism.
1 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=3&l=1-#x)And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=3&l=2-#x)This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=3&l=3-#x)Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=3&l=4-#x)Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=3&l=5-#x)Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
-
Sure, an article by the CMRI who also twice published an article "The Salvation of those Outside the Church", verbatim contradicting dogma. That treatment is completely one-sided, not presenting any of the contrary evidence (of which there's mountains), and taking what they use often out of context. It has all the hallmarks of someone with an agenda who only present a small part of the full story that support their pre-determined agenda.
At the end of the day, the Church has not condemned BoB/BoD per se, not directly, and people are entitled to believe in it.
At the same time, though, 95%+ of Trads simply use BoD as an excuse to get non-Catholics "saved", whereas in its original understanding it had no such extension. They could hardly care less about the rare case of a catechumen who might die two weeks before his Baptism, but about getting all manner of Prot, infidel, heretic, schismatic, and non-Catholic saved.
At that point, you need to just stop pretending to be a Trad because ALL of Vatican II rests upon that ecclesiology.
I disagree, while the Church has not explicitly condemned it, it is indirectly refuted and contrary to what the Church has defined. We should not tolerate false ideas, especially those that harm the Church.
-
.
This is a fallacy. Actually, I see this fallacy constantly on this forum, people trying to shift the question from what DOES happen to what CAN happen.
The question here is: What happens to someone who sheds their blood and dies for Christ before receiving baptism, with the Catholic Faith?
The Church answer this question through her ordinary teaching and practice, that such a person is still a martyr and is in fact baptized with his blood.
You (and Mr. Feeney) are answering a different question. The question you are answering is, "Is God able to secure baptism for someone who is unbaptized and about to die?" And of course the answer to that question is that God can do whatever He wants, but that's not the question that was asked or the one that the Church answered.
This is nonsense as the Catholic faith is given in baptism. And Florence as Stubborn quotes is very clear. And Pius 12th is also very clear, non-Catholics are not members of the Church. There is also plenty of historical evidence that Catechumans were not considered members of the Church and did not receive Christian burial.
Also Mr Feeney... really? Show some respect, He was a valid priest and actually stood up against the scuм that blatantly denied EENS. Most trads have fallen for propaganda regarding him.
-
Dear JoeZ,
Yes this is a great help. What happens when this position is anathema? What happens to the people who hold that position?
Someone more competent than I should be solicited for the right answer, and where judgment is necessary on your part, a husband, father, or priest should be consulted. Please don't think I say this out of meanness. I truly have not the faculty to help you directly but I can say a few things.
Not all errors rise to the level of heresy.
Not all heresy is pertinacious, some is material only, ie those folks who think the Church teaches BOD may not know better.
Those who take BOB/BOD to its logical extreme and include all in the Church, even as "anonymous Christians" are in a whole lot of trouble.
JoeZ
-
"If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ." Trent Session5 Chapter3 (Emphasis mine)
Assuming we agree on the first part (ie, the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary) those who hold BOD/BOB must state that people saved by BOD/BOB were saved by Jesus Christ but the merit of Jesus Christ was not "applied by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church". That position is anathema.
BOD/BOB have no form defined by the Church.
BOD/BOB don't have a minister to "rightly administer" them (no intent to do what the Church does).
BOD/BOB have no ritual defined to "rightly administer".
"As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ" excludes all the unbaptized from Christ's merit.
I pray I've helped here,
JoeZ
Thank you, when you combine the numerous quotes of Church teaching on this issue and it becomes abundantly clear that BoD/BoB cannot be true doctrines, and frankly contrary to sound doctrine, heretical even.
-
For Lad; Prot, infidel, heretic, schismatic, and non-Catholics
Protestants, heretics and schismatics already baptize validly in most cases. Infidels (and non-Catholics) that meet the criteria cease to be infidels in God's eyes.
For Stubborn; Yeti is right about this. The Feeney quote is also right without excluding Yeti's position, except where it mentions the Chuch Militant. Those who meet the criteria have won the fight, they have overcome the world.
Also, it is a deliberate act of Providence that we have canonized Saints who received BOB-BOD precisely in order to prove their validity.
For JoeZ; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church
Denying the application of merit by water is not the same as ALLOWING for the application in any other way.
For Anthonypadua; Those quotes do not specify or exclude any of the forms of Baptism. The one from Pope Eugene is talking about the merit of sacrifices which, as he says, would be of no avail to someone who does not qualify for any of the form of Baptism.
2nd Anthony; Same as Stubborn above.
3rd Anthony; Strange coincidence that the Church has not condemned BOD-BOB. We are near the end time now. This should have been cleared up by now if it was false. VII (deliberately) misinterprets everything, even what's not otherwise in question, like the General Priesthood of the Faithful vs. the sacramental Priesthood.
-
Also, it is a deliberate act of Providence that we have canonized Saints who received BOB-BOD precisely in order to prove their validity.
For Anthonypadua; Those quotes do not specify or exclude any of the forms of Baptism. The one from Pope Eugene is talking about the merit of sacrifices which, as he says, would be of no avail to someone who does not qualify for any of the form of Baptism.
2nd Anthony; Same as Stubborn above.
3rd Anthony; Strange coincidence that the Church has not condemned BOD-BOB. We are near the end time now. This should have been cleared up by now if it was false. VII (deliberately) misinterprets everything, even what's not otherwise in question, like the General Priesthood of the Faithful vs. the sacramental Priesthood.
It was providence that allowed Benedict 12th to define that all the Saints of the new testament have received baptism. We also have saints who were miraculously baptised before death with water, one saint was even denied entry to heaven and was brought back to life just to be baptized.
Pope Eugene is very clear, if one isn't united to the Church then bƖσσdshɛd does not save them. To say that baptism can have forms without actually using the water is nothing more than cope.
I also left out numerous other quotes like that of Pope Leo the great at chalcedon.
St. Leo the Great at the Council of Chalcedon, St. Leo said the Blood of Redemption can't be separated from the water of baptism.
"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. 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."
it's also a strange coincidence that the Church has never explicitly defined BoD and BoB as forms for baptism despite the numerous opportunities at councils like Florence and Trent.
Your points do not address the concerns and even twists that Florence meant.
-
"If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema:
Assuming we agree on the first part (ie, the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary) those who hold BOD/BOB must state that people saved by BOD/BOB were saved by Jesus Christ but the merit of Jesus Christ was not "applied by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church". That position is anathema...
I pray I've helped here
No Joe, you have added to the confusion. That is false logic, big time, as Shrewd Operator demonstrates.
The position that is anathematised is to deny that the sacrament of baptism rightly administered applies the said merit of Jesus Christ to both adults and infants, not to affirm that those same merits may be applied to souls by Our Lord using means other than the sacramental rite.
-
Well to start with,
Of course all of the Saints of the New Testament have received Baptism, the question is how?
Daniel was preserved from the lions, but St. Ignatius was not. One proved his sanctity by defying nature physically, the other by defying it spiritually. The fact that some people are miraculously baptized with water does not mean that others are not miraculously baptized by the Spirit.
That goes to the next point, you have to qualify for BOD BEFORE you can qualify for BOB. You can't die a martyr without Faith and Grace. Such Faith and Grace would precede and follow from BOD. Therefore, all who qualify for BOB first obtain BOD.
-
I always find it a type of anomaly that the only promoters of a BOD are those who are themselves sacramentally baptized. And that although God provided the water, the minister and the time for them (and for all who ever were and ever will get baptized), that God purposely does not provide for a select few, and always due to "unforeseen" circuмstance. That's simply crazy talk imo.
Personally I have never come across a catechumen who promotes or accepts the idea of a BOD. Truth be told, the ones I've known despise the whole idea, they don't trust it at all, they want the sacrament and want it now! I have only known catechumens who out of their fear of dying before they could receive the sacrament, were immediately and constantly anxious to receive the sacrament asap as soon as they learned it was the first requirement to become a Catholic and member of the Church. I've been told by them that they lose sleep over it and that their constant prayer is for God to not take them before they can get baptized.
I believe that the idea of a BOD/BOB can be very convenient for the living, but not at all for the dying.
-
I do love the thread title. "Apparently ..."
... as if after about 30 200-page threads this isn't obvious, and not just apparent ... :laugh1:
-
Well to start with,
Of course all of the Saints of the New Testament have received Baptism, the question is how?
Several Church Fathers held that when the dead were raised back to life after the Resurrection of Our Lord, it was precisely so they could be baptized ... not just as some kind of spectacle. There's solid evidence for this.
-
It was providence that allowed Benedict 12th to define that all the Saints of the new testament have received baptism. We also have saints who were miraculously baptised before death with water, one saint was even denied entry to heaven and was brought back to life just to be baptized.
Pope Eugene is very clear, if one isn't united to the Church then bƖσσdshɛd does not save them. To say that baptism can have forms without actually using the water is nothing more than cope.
I also left out numerous other quotes like that of Pope Leo the great at chalcedon. it's also a strange coincidence that the Church has never explicitly defined BoD and BoB as forms for baptism despite the numerous opportunities at councils like Florence and Trent.
Your points do not address the concerns and even twists that Florence meant.
Don't forget Pope St. Siricius. Lots of anti-BoD evidence that the BoDers ignore. The cite only those things they believe support their case, but ignore the rest ... the surest sign of intellectual dishonest, as we can see in the CMRI article posted by Matthew.
-
For Lad; Prot, infidel, heretic, schismatic, and non-Catholics
Protestants, heretics and schismatics already baptize validly in most cases. Infidels (and non-Catholics) that meet the criteria cease to be infidels in God's eyes.
... and yet this doesn't stop BoDers from applying BoD (redefined as Faith of Desire) even to the validly baptized. Obviously BoD proper applies only to infidels (like the Hindus in Tibet, Jews, Muslims ... and all those that most Trad clergy have explicitly stated could be saved).
-
Let's try to look at the objective evidence and start with the Church Fathers. Dishonest articles like those by the CMRI, publishers of "The Salvation of those Outside the Church" ignore the Patristic evidence. Father Laisney had the mendacious temerity to claim that there was universal Patristic consensus in favor of BoD.
Hogwash.
We have about 5-6 Church Fathers explicitly reject Baptism of Desire, and several more implicitly rejecting it.
We only have 2 Patristic sources that allegedly accept it: St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, and all subsequent BoD theory relies upon the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose".
Well of these two, St. Augustine made some youthful speculation in favor, where after saying that he had gone back and forth on the question, stated that "I find ... [in favor of BoD]". Hardly something taught with authority as if it were received Tradition and Revealed truth. Unfortunately for those who rely on St. Augustine, he later retracted the theory, after his anti-Donatist and anti-Pelagian days, and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in history.
St. Ambrose also was on record explicitly rejecting Baptism of Desire. What, then, of the apparent contradiction between that and his (ubiquitously-cited) Oration at the Funeral of Valentinian? In that oration, St. Ambrose did NOT claim that Valentinian could be SAVED by his zeal / confession / desire, but stated that like unbaptized martyrs, he could be "washed but not crowned". Crowning refers to entry into the Kingdom and Salvation. So this too is a false authority.
Pope St. Sulpicius explicitly and dogmatically taught and "each and every one" of those "desiring Baptism" would be lost if they didn't receive the Sacrament, or, rather, that they would forfeit the Kingdom and Glory (i.e. salvation and the Beatific Vision).
Even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner had the intellectual honestly (lacked by most BoD Trads) to admit that the Patristic consensus was heavily AGAINST salvation by Baptism of Desire ... despite WANTING to believe the contrary.
There are only 2 ways to discern that some dogma/doctrine has been revealed:
1) unanimous Patristic consensus
2) some truth derives implicitly and necessarily from revealed premises
We see a big fat negatory on the unanimous Patristic consensus. In fact, the objective evidence shows the opposite.
And NO ONE has ever demonstrated how BoD derives necessarily from other revealed truths. We get long litanies of "Yep, BoD", "Yep, BoD" and ... "Augustine and Ambrose", "Augustine and Ambrose". That's IT, and as we see that Augustine retracted, while St. Ambrose did not teach salvation by BoD, the whole thing rests on a fallacious house of cards. St. Thomas came closest to providing some theological proof for it, but it was really more an explanation of how it worked than a proof of its existence. He said that the Sacraments have visible and invisible aspects to them, and that in the case of BoD, you get the invisible without the visible. That's not true of many Sacraments, in particular, of the character Sacraments. There's no such thing as Holy Orders of Desire (despite how much St. Therese desired to be a priest) or Confirmation of Desire. Those are two "character" Sacraments, where the character is an essential part of the grace of the Sacrament. Well, Baptism is also a character-conferring Sacrament. After BoD theory, the character was trivialized into a simple non-repeatability marker, a badge of honor that some in Heaven wore while others lacked, but which had no real effect. But the Church Fathers made it clear that this seal, this crowning, i.e. the character of Baptism was required for entry into the Kingdom and Glory (i.e. the Beatific Vision) ... even if some like St. Ambrose held that the other aspect of the Sacrament of Baptism, namely, the remission of sins, could be had by confession / desire.
Father Jurgens (pre-V2 Patristic scholar): “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again . . . etc.’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there, and it is likely enough to be so constant as to constitute revelation.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15, footnote 31, my italics)
“. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)
So much for BoD being revealed and so much for Patristic evidence for BoD.
After the Patristic era, St. Fulgentius, disciple of St. Augustine, rejected BoD, and that was the last any mention of it appears again in Catholic authors until the pre-scholastic period.
To be continued with the Pre-Scholastics (Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard) ...
-
I always find it a type of anomaly that the only promoters of a BOD are those who are themselves sacramentally baptized. And that although God provided the water, the minister and the time for them (and for all who ever were and ever will get baptized), that God purposely does not provide for a select few, and always due to "unforeseen" circuмstance. That's simply crazy talk imo.
Personally I have never come across a catechumen who promotes or accepts the idea of a BOD. Truth be told, the ones I've known despise the whole idea, they don't trust it at all, they want the sacrament and want it now! I have only known catechumens who out of their fear of dying before they could receive the sacrament, were immediately and constantly anxious to receive the sacrament asap as soon as they learned it was the first requirement to become a Catholic and member of the Church. I've been told by them that they lose sleep over it and that their constant prayer is for God to not take them before they can get baptized.
I believe that the idea of a BOD/BOB can be very convenient for the living, but not at all for the dying.
Yes, those who have already been baptised should really consider this perspective. It's also ridiculous that desire suffices. Does desire for marriage mean you are actually married? Is desire for children the same as actually having children? We might say desire for penance suffices but perfect contrition has several components and is not reliable, plus the person who CAN receive perfect contrition already has a mark on their soul, a non-baptised person has no mark.
-
Sure, an article by the CMRI who also twice published an article "The Salvation of those Outside the Church", verbatim contradicting dogma.
Link to this article? I know the Dimond Brothers speak of it, but I have never seen the contents. I did find this post in a very old thread. The title ("Baptism of Desire and of Blood") of the article does not appear to be the one the DB's used ("The Salvation of Those Outside the Church"). It also appears that they never post any of the content:
CMRI priest confirms their belief in salvation for non-Catholics - page 4 - The Feeneyism Ghetto - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/cmri-priest-confirms-their-belief-in-salvation-for-non-catholics/msg308372/#msg308372)
-
Several Church Fathers held that when the dead were raised back to life after the Resurrection of Our Lord, it was precisely so they could be baptized ... not just as some kind of spectacle. There's solid evidence for this.
I’m not intending to address anything else on the thread, just this specific point
But on this particular, even if it is true, I don’t find it the most compelling argument since presumably not EVERY person who was saved before the new covenant is physically resurrected here and you don’t believe people in the OLD testament can’t be saved without water baptism
-
I’m not intending to address anything else on the thread, just this specific point
But on this particular, even if it is true, I don’t find it the most compelling argument since presumably not EVERY person who was saved before the new covenant is physically resurrected here and you don’t believe people in the OLD testament can’t be saved without water baptism
Who knows? Some Church Fathers seem to think that they were baptized. God could easily raise all the OT Just back to life, even if for a moment, to have an angel baptize them. God could of course impart the baptismal character on the OT Just in an extraordinary manner, but there's also nothing stopping Him from raising them all back to life, having them baptized, and then enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That character of Baptism is essential for the Beatific Vision, because it's precisely what imparts the supernatural faculty (which we lack by nature) to see God as He is.
Dimond Brothers made a great video about all the Patristic opinion in favor of the OT just being raised back to life and Baptized. I knew there was some out there, but had no idea there was so much in favor of that opinion.
-
Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBpm_ipT9Sk
-
In addition, what would prevent God from having all those who were not lost, on account of having "Baptism of Desire", be baptized with water at the final Resurrection of the Dead, or even before? Nothing. He could easily do that. He could even in theory do the same for infants who are currently now in a Limbo state. There's very little about such detail that's every been defined by the Church, but there's absolutely no reason that God CANNOT bring the Sacrament to all His elect. BoDers argue that we're constraining God by the Sacraments, while themselves constraining God by "impossibility", whereas for God there's no such thing.
We have some stories of saints who raised the dead back to life in order to baptize them. And God cannot do the same?
-
Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBpm_ipT9Sk
With the first few minutes of the video I think there's a bit of a problem with the Dimond argument about the "paradise" the good thief, St. Dismas, entered into "this day" with Christ.
Dimond says it's the Limbus Patrum, not heaven. Well, Scripture says otherwise.
In the original Greek, the word in Luke 23:45 for paradise is παράδεισος (paradeisos), which, using the Strong reference system, is given this designation, G3857.
Here's the other uses of this word:
2 Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, G3857 and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Rev. 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise G3857 of God.
That's the King James translation because I'm using this handy site - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3857/kjv/tr/0-1/
As to their citation of Matthew 12:40 and Christ being three days in the "heart of the earth," yes, that is where His body remained.
Take the Dimonds with a grain of salt. They can be good, and they can be way off as well.
-
Dimond says it's the Limbus Patrum, not heaven. Well, Scripture says otherwise.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Certainly the Fathers in Limbo were not in Heaven, not in the Heaven of the Beatific Vision ... by definition. Sounds like semantics here, and the term "Paradise" is not Heaven of the Beatific Vision because we know that the Gates of Heaven weren't open to the OT Just until Our Lord's Resurrection, so the "Paradise" referred to by Our Lord was Limbo, and it was not Heaven. Indeed, it was probably a very pleasant place for the OT Just, and thus referred to as a paradise, but it was not Heaven.
With regard to St. Paul being taken up into "Paradise", he did not enter the Beatific Vision, but just entered into the Heavenly realm. There's a natural aspect of Heaven/Paradise, and the Supernatural (the Beatific Vision). We know that because Our Lord and Our Lady's bodies have some place to God, into this Paradise.
-
I'm not sure what you mean here. Certainly the Fathers in Limbo were not in Heaven, not in the Heaven of the Beatific Vision ... by definition. Sounds like semantics here, and the term "Paradise" is not Heaven of the Beatific Vision because we know that the Gates of Heaven weren't open to the OT Just until Our Lord's Resurrection, so the "Paradise" referred to by Our Lord was Limbo, and it was not Heaven.
With regard to St. Paul being taken up into "Paradise", he did not enter the Beatific Vision, but just entered into the Heavenly realm. There's a natural aspect of Heaven/Paradise, and the Supernatural (the Beatific Vision). We know that because Our Lord and Our Lady's bodies have some place to God, into this Paradise.
St. Dismas went to the same place that the "tree of life" is, and that's not the Limbus Patrum. As to where the guy St. Paul is talking about was, it was the "abode of the blessed."
Haydock on 2 Cor. 12:4
Ver. 4. Caught up into paradise. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are of opinion that this third heaven and paradise are the same place, and designate the abode of the blessed.
St. Dismas went "immediately" to heaven, or at least "this day," the day he died. So say St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. If St. Dismas entered the Limbo of the Fathers, at the least it was when it was "made a paradise by our Lord's going thither."
Haydock on Lk 12:43
Ver. 43. I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise; i.e. in a place of rest with the souls of the just. The construction is not, I say to thee this day, &c., but, thou shalt be with me this day in the paradise. (Witham) — In paradise. That is, in the happy state of rest, joy and peace everlasting. Christ was pleased by a special privilege, to reward the faith and confession of the penitent thief with a full discharge of all his sins, both as to the guilt and punishment, and to introduce him, immediately after death, into the happy society of the saints, whose limbo (that is, the place of their confinement) was now made a paradise by our Lord’s going thither. (Challoner) — The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham’s bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity. (St. Augustine) — St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, says he entered heaven before all the patriarchs and prophets. St. Chrysostom thinks that paradise was immediately open to him, and that he entered heaven the first mankind. (Tom. v. homil. 32.)
The Dimonds present their material as if it's a "done deal" and proof that others are in error, which is laughable here. They want it to seem that there was some sort of delay before St. Dismas entered "paradise," i.e. "the abode of the blessed." Far from it.
-
St. Dismas went "immediately" to heaven, or at least "this day," the day he died.
He most certainly did not. Gates of Heaven were not opened until Our Lord rose from the dead.
-
He most certainly did not. Gates of Heaven were not opened until Our Lord rose from the dead.
Lad,
You're slavishly following the Dimonds here, as if it's settled. The Patristic testimony, Haydock, and the language of Scripture at the very least indicate that it's not settled: there is much support for the argument that St. Dismas immediately "this day" entered heaven.
I think the evidence is contrary to the Dimond claim, but, again, I would think "at the very least" the Dimond's claim is disputable.
-
That goes to the next point, you have to qualify for BOD BEFORE you can qualify for BOB. You can't die a martyr without Faith and Grace. Such Faith and Grace would precede and follow from BOD. Therefore, all who qualify for BOB first obtain BOD.
Exactly, but in the Catholic order of things faith and grace are received through baptism, not before.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…”
Also, the OP contains a deliberately false translation of 'sine' as 'except through' while everyone knows it means 'without'. This has been pointed out to the CMRI almost twenty years ago, yet they insist on deceiving good-willed people with their twisted translation.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215: “There is indeed one universal Church of the FAITHFUL (fideles), outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Catechumens are not part of the faithful.
-
Lad,
You're slavishly following the Dimonds here, as if it's settled. The Patristic testimony, Haydock, and the language of Scripture at the very least indicate that it's not settled: there is much support for the argument that St. Dismas immediately "this day" entered heaven.
I think the evidence is contrary to the Dimond claim, but, again, I would think "at the very least" the Dimond's claim is disputable.
It is settled. Everybody knows Christ was the first to enter Heaven, after three Days.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."
MHFM:
John 20:17- “[On the Day of the Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary. She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”
Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.
Are you claiming that Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the good thief on the same day that he died, or that it is permissible to so hold, or not?
-
It is settled. Everybody knows Christ was the first to enter Heaven, after three Days.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."
MHFM: Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.
Are you claiming that Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the good thief on the same day that he died, or that it is permissible to so hold, or not?
:facepalm:
Tell that to St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom, etc.
You do realize that Our Lord possessed a soul as well as a body, right? Think about the Scriptural use of the term "paradise," the testimony of the Fathers, and whether, perhaps, there's a way of understanding how they all fit together.
Don't be a Dimond flunky.
-
It is settled. Everybody knows Christ was the first to enter Heaven, after three Days.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."
MHFM: Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.
Are you claiming that Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the good thief on the same day that he died, or that it is permissible to so hold, or not?
I'm asserting that St. Dismas was in "paradise" with Our Lord "this day," the day he hung on the Cross next to Christ, as Scripture says.
Haydock:
The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham’s bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity.
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
Tell that to St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom, etc.
You do realize that Our Lord possessed a soul as well as a body, right? Think about the Scriptural use of the term "paradise," the testimony of the Fathers, and whether, perhaps, there's a way of understanding how they all fit together.
Don't be a Dimond flunky.
You're trying to make this about the Dimonds and it's pathetic. Answer the question, please.
-
The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham’s bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity.
I admit you were right, it's not definitively settled, but the latter view contradicts the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
It didn't really compute for me that this got around the problem of the good thief being with Christ, although in a pretty unconvincing way.
Still, the first explanation is way better and more common.
-
That it can be said that Christ is at the same time in Heaven and in Abraham's bosom sounds ridiculous, actually...
But anyway, the question of St. Dismas is irrelevant to the topic of BoD since he died under the Old Law, even though it keeps getting brought up.
-
This to me is the hottest subject, and best. I read the book of Fr. Muller, No Salvation Outside the Church". I am convinced, that this situation is in God's Hands. He judges and not for me. As we have been told by Saints, IF a catechumen dies, bury them as IF they are catholic.
I am happy with this. I can not make judgements. I pray for those in purgatory. Those on earth. BOD and BOB I am not comfortable with. They require judgement.
There are to many opinions, and add those without definitions. To me these are all works of the enemy. It is in the Hands of God.
-
In the book, Salt of the Earth: An Informal Portrait of Richard Cardinal Cushing by John Fenton, we find an interesting quote. Please remember that Cushing is the Arch-Heretic bishop who had no problem with birth control (a.k.a. Dr. Rock), and who "excommunicated" Fr. Feeney. In 1964 Abp. Cushing spoke before the Massachusetts Clerical Association. He said:
"Christians should recognize the differences in dogma, but we must not quarrel over them...We are told there is no salvation outside the Church-nonsense!"
If this is the heretic who condemned Fr. Feeney, then Fr. Feeney should count it a privilege, a great grace to be excommunicated.
As for St. Dismas, we do not not know if he was baptized, and St. Augustine in his Retractions said, "Formerly I said that the Good Thief was not baptized, but I do not know this." In between the Crucifixion and the Ascension many of the dead "came out of their graves" as we are told in Scripture, and we do not know if St. Dismas was baptized or not. I certainly think St. Joseph was both baptized and confirmed, because, as St. Francis de Sales says, St. Joseph was assumed into heaven at the Ascension, both body and soul.
-
I also keep in mind KAB. Knowledge=Attitude= behavior. I think I read this with how communism works/thinks? But I found this to be very important to note.
I apply it to what I read and think. IMO, I have noticed how some peoples behavior is with BOD. I noticed a few times how teaching adults and taking time. Now, I could be wrong. Everyone is different in their needs to be taught and etc. But, if baptism is slowed down, thinking it is ok, their desire is there, then IMO that is not a good attitude or behavior to wait for a sacrament. That is a fine line when it is someone else and we don't know the whole situation.
I have heard a phrase, " oh, don't worry, we believe in BOD." Again, that is an attitude showing. And I certainly frown upon that statement.
-
Lad,
You're slavishly following the Dimonds here, as if it's settled.
Utterly ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the Dimonds. There's a reference in the Catechism of Trent that the Good Thief went to the "Bosom of Abraham", i.e. Limbo of the Just. I'll try to find it for you.
-
Thank you Brownson 1876. You make a true view! Fr. Feeney, in his heart, was defending the Church, Her dogmas. And Fr. Coughlin, radio priest, another ganged priest.
-
I'm asserting that St. Dismas was in "paradise" with Our Lord "this day," the day he hung on the Cross next to Christ, as Scripture says.
Haydock:
:facepalm:
Did you even read what you posted? Initially, he was with Jesus, because JESUS HIMSELF went down to Hell, the Limbo of the Fathers, and THEN LATER went to Heaven when Jesus opened the Gates thereof, and the Tradition is that He opened the Gates of Heaven at His Resurrection.
-
You're trying to make this about the Dimonds and it's pathetic. Answer the question, please.
That's exactly what he's doing and it's pathetic. Even if you claim (unproven) that Dismas was in Heaven THAT VERY DAY, there's nothing to preclude a stopover on his part on the bosom of Abraham, where just like all the other OT Just, per the Patristic evidence cited, would have been baptized before entering Heaven "that day".
-
As for St. Dismas, we do not not know if he was baptized, and St. Augustine in his Retractions said, "Formerly I said that the Good Thief was not baptized, but I do not know this." In between the Crucifixion and the Ascension many of the dead "came out of their graves" as we are told in Scripture, and we do not know if St. Dismas was baptized or not. I certainly think St. Joseph was both baptized and confirmed, because, as St. Francis de Sales says, St. Joseph was assumed into heaven at the Ascension, both body and soul.
And there were Fathers who assumed that all those OT Just who had NOT already been Baptized were Baptized at the time Our Lord descended to Limbo/Hell. We can't prove this, of course, since it's not a unanimous Patristic opinion that we know of, but this is my opinion. I believe that the Brothers missed a reference to St. Ephrem the Syrian who taught the same thing in very clear terms. I'll have to find that citation.
-
That's exactly what he's doing and it's pathetic. Nor does it have anything to do with the Patristic evidence, where many Fathers stated that the OT Just had to be baptized before entering Heaven and the Beatific Vision ... unless you claim (without any evidence) that Dismas immediately went to Heaven, before any of the other OT Just did, such as St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist.
So I guess that Dismas was waiting already in Heaven before Our Lord, St. Joseph, or St. John the Baptist got there, waiting to greet them. So Dismas, according to Decem, was the first soul in Heaven. :laugh1: That's how sad it gets when he's desperate to attack the Dimond Brothers.
No, that's not what I'm doing. My response about being a "Dimond flunky" was in directed to someone who takes the Dimond view when I've cited Scripture, Haydock, and some of the Father's to the contrary.
No, St. Dismas wasn't "waiting in heaven already" for Our Lord. You're so locked into your own delusions that you can't read . . . no wonder you throw Scripture out the window. Our Lord said:
Luke 12:43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
The only thing pathetic around here is your deliberate attempts to distort not only me but Scripture to save face and, yeah, justify the Dimonds.
-
It is settled. Everybody knows Christ was the first to enter Heaven, after three Days.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...before His death and Resurrection Heaven was closed against every child of Adam."
Marulus,
Look at the complete quote from the Catechism. You should really take the time to think through this and not simply to find quotes that you can rip out of context - like the Dimonds - to justify a position you've committed yourself to beforehand.
Having explained these things, the pastor should next proceed to teach that Christ the Lord descended into hell,
in order that having despoiled the demons, He might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just
souls, and might bring them into heaven with Himself. This He accomplished in an admirable and most glorious
manner; for His august presence at once shed a celestial lustre upon the captives and filled them with
inconceivable joy and delight. He also imparted to them that supreme happiness which consists in the vision of
God, thus verifying His promise to the thief on the cross: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
This deliverance of the just was long before predicted by Osee in these words: O death, I will be thy death; O
hell, I will be thy bite; ' and also by the Prophet Zachary: Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth
thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water; and lastly, the same is expressed by the Apostle in these words:
Despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them
in himself.
But the better to understand the efficacy of this mystery we should frequently call to mind that not only the just
who were born after the coming of our Lord, but also those who preceded Him from the days of Adam, or who
shall be born until the end of time, obtain their salvation through the benefit of His Passion. Wherefore before
His death and Resurrection heaven was closed against every child of Adam. The souls of the just, on their
departure from this life, were either borne to the bosom of Abraham; or, as is still the case with those who have
something to be washed away or satisfied for, were purified in the fire of purgatory.
You quoted the language in green. You have, of course, to read that consistently with the highlights in the first paragraph in red.
Strictly speaking, following the way you want to read it, the OT saints and St. Dismas didn't enter heaven until the Resurrection. And yet the Catechism says "at once" they experienced "the vision of God" when Christ descended to them before His Resurrection. What is heaven before the bodily resurrection at the end of time at the general judgment if not the "vision of God," i.e. the beatific vision?
In light of the first paragaph, I would say the catechism is using "death and Resurrection" as a kind of conflation of distinct events essential to our salvation and entry into heaven to refer to Our Lord's singular work at the end of the original Holy Week in Jerusalem that opened heaven for us. As the Catechism says, the OT saints "obtain their salvation through the benefit of His Passion."
There is nothing implied in the first paragraph about the OT saints, and St. Dismas, waiting around for another 36 or 48 hours or so until achieving the "vision of God" in paradise. On the contrary, it sounds rather like it was immediate upon Our Lord's visiting them.
Haydock interprets it that way when it says, in the annotation to Luke 12:43, that:
In paradise. That is, in the happy state of rest, joy and peace everlasting. Christ was pleased by a special privilege, to reward the faith and confession of the penitent thief with a full discharge of all his sins, both as to the guilt and punishment, and to introduce him, immediately after death, into the happy society of the saints, whose limbo (that is, the place of their confinement) was now made a paradise by our Lord’s going thither. (Challoner) — The soul of the good thief was that same day with Jesus Christ, in the felicity of the saints, in Abraham’s bosom, or in heaven, where Jesus was always present by his divinity. (St. Augustine) — St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, says he entered heaven before all the patriarchs and prophets. St. Chrysostom thinks that paradise was immediately open to him, and that he entered heaven the first mankind. (Tom. v. homil. 32.)
-
Marulus,
Look at the complete quote from the Catechism. You should really take the time to think through this and not simply to find quotes that you can rip out of context - like the Dimonds - to justify a position you've committed yourself to beforehand.
You quoted the language in green. You have, of course, to read that consistently with the highlights in the first paragraph in red.
Strictly speaking, following the way you want to read it, the OT saints and St. Dismas didn't enter heaven until the Resurrection. And yet the Catechism says "at once" they experienced "the vision of God" when Christ descended to them before His Resurrection. What is heaven before the bodily resurrection at the end of time at the general judgment if not the "vision of God," i.e. the beatific vision?
In light of the first paragaph, I would say the catechism is using "death and Resurrection" as a kind of conflation of distinct events essential to our salvation and entry into heaven to refer to Our Lord's singular work at the end of the original Holy Week in Jerusalem that opened heaven for us. As the Catechism says, the OT saints "obtain their salvation through the benefit of His Passion."
There is nothing implied in the first paragraph about the OT saints, and St. Dismas, waiting around for another 36 or 48 hours or so until achieving the "vision of God" in paradise. On the contrary, it sounds rather like it was immediate upon Our Lord's visiting them.
Haydock interprets it that way when it says, in the annotation to Luke 12:43, that:
I have actually arrived at the correct position due to the evidence and I am not even committed to it absolutely because the question is irrelevant to BoD.
While I understand your position just fine, it seems you are the one who has failed to do his due diligence and actually ascertain what the Dimonds say, as well as read carefully what I have said.
As I have quoted already:
MFHM: Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.
My position, and the Brothers', is exactly the one you for some reason think I reject, that Abraham's bosom became Paradise, in a sense, in the presence of Our Lord.
What I am contesting is that St. Dismas and the other saints entered Heaven, the place, before Christ's ascension.
I'm receiving mixed signals so I hope that is your position as well but that you just misunderstood me.
P.S. The 'at once' refers to after Christ descended into Abraham's bosom, so I don't see what is supposed to be its significance.
-
This to me is the hottest subject, and best. I read the book of Fr. Muller, No Salvation Outside the Church". I am convinced, that this situation is in God's Hands. He judges and not for me. As we have been told by Saints, IF a catechumen dies, bury them as IF they are catholic.
I am happy with this. I can not make judgements. I pray for those in purgatory. Those on earth. BOD and BOB I am not comfortable with. They require judgement.
There are to many opinions, and add those without definitions. To me these are all works of the enemy. It is in the Hands of God.
Traditionally Catechumens did not receive Christian burials.
https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1279210690322984961
-
Bottom Line: Dimond Brothers did not use Dismas as proof that there is no BoD, merely stated that he is no proof FOR BoD. Burden of proof is on those who claim that he IS proof for BoD, and the argument hinges on the assertion that Dismas went to Heaven that very day, which at the very least is disputed. It's a very small minority opinion which holds that the OT Just could got to Heaven after Our Lord's Passion was complete, rather than at His Resurrection, or even, as the Catechism of Trent held, after His Ascension. So because you cannot prove that Dismas went to Heaven that very day without Baptism, and that even if he did go to Heaven that very day (vs. the bosom of Abraham, which was also called "paradise"), that he didn't also get Baptized that same day. This is logically one of the most ridiculous attempts an some kind of argument that I've ever seen.
Catechism of Trent:
Ascending into heaven, He threw open its gates, which had been closed by the sin of Adam ...
And, of course, even if Our Lord opened the gates of Heaven (whenever He did it), I doubt all went there immediately, as I suspect there were some there who were still in need of some purgation (i.e. Purgatory).
-
Let's try to look at the objective evidence and start with the Church Fathers. Dishonest articles like those by the CMRI, publishers of "The Salvation of those Outside the Church" ignore the Patristic evidence. Father Laisney had the mendacious temerity to claim that there was universal Patristic consensus in favor of BoD.
Hogwash.
We have about 5-6 Church Fathers explicitly reject Baptism of Desire, and several more implicitly rejecting it.
We only have 2 Patristic sources that allegedly accept it: St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, and all subsequent BoD theory relies upon the "authority of Augustine and Ambrose".
Well of these two, St. Augustine made some youthful speculation in favor, where after saying that he had gone back and forth on the question, stated that "I find ... [in favor of BoD]". Hardly something taught with authority as if it were received Tradition and Revealed truth. Unfortunately for those who rely on St. Augustine, he later retracted the theory, after his anti-Donatist and anti-Pelagian days, and issued some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in history.
St. Ambrose also was on record explicitly rejecting Baptism of Desire. What, then, of the apparent contradiction between that and his (ubiquitously-cited) Oration at the Funeral of Valentinian? In that oration, St. Ambrose did NOT claim that Valentinian could be SAVED by his zeal / confession / desire, but stated that like unbaptized martyrs, he could be "washed but not crowned". Crowning refers to entry into the Kingdom and Salvation. So this too is a false authority.
Pope St. Sulpicius explicitly and dogmatically taught and "each and every one" of those "desiring Baptism" would be lost if they didn't receive the Sacrament, or, rather, that they would forfeit the Kingdom and Glory (i.e. salvation and the Beatific Vision).
Even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner had the intellectual honestly (lacked by most BoD Trads) to admit that the Patristic consensus was heavily AGAINST salvation by Baptism of Desire ... despite WANTING to believe the contrary.
There are only 2 ways to discern that some dogma/doctrine has been revealed:
1) unanimous Patristic consensus
2) some truth derives implicitly and necessarily from revealed premises
We see a big fat negatory on the unanimous Patristic consensus. In fact, the objective evidence shows the opposite.
And NO ONE has ever demonstrated how BoD derives necessarily from other revealed truths. We get long litanies of "Yep, BoD", "Yep, BoD" and ... "Augustine and Ambrose", "Augustine and Ambrose". That's IT, and as we see that Augustine retracted, while St. Ambrose did not teach salvation by BoD, the whole thing rests on a fallacious house of cards. St. Thomas came closest to providing some theological proof for it, but it was really more an explanation of how it worked than a proof of its existence. He said that the Sacraments have visible and invisible aspects to them, and that in the case of BoD, you get the invisible without the visible. That's not true of many Sacraments, in particular, of the character Sacraments. There's no such thing as Holy Orders of Desire (despite how much St. Therese desired to be a priest) or Confirmation of Desire. Those are two "character" Sacraments, where the character is an essential part of the grace of the Sacrament. Well, Baptism is also a character-conferring Sacrament. After BoD theory, the character was trivialized into a simple non-repeatability marker, a badge of honor that some in Heaven wore while others lacked, but which had no real effect. But the Church Fathers made it clear that this seal, this crowning, i.e. the character of Baptism was required for entry into the Kingdom and Glory (i.e. the Beatific Vision) ... even if some like St. Ambrose held that the other aspect of the Sacrament of Baptism, namely, the remission of sins, could be had by confession / desire.
So much for BoD being revealed and so much for Patristic evidence for BoD.
After the Patristic era, St. Fulgentius, disciple of St. Augustine, rejected BoD, and that was the last any mention of it appears again in Catholic authors until the pre-scholastic period.
To be continued with the Pre-Scholastics (Abelard, Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard) ...
Having put aside the absurd distraction and (deliberate?) waste of time regarding Dismas, can any BoDer refute what I wrote above? Conclusion, no Patristic consensus whatsoever in favor of BoD, and in fact, near-unanimous consensus AGAINST it.
-
No Joe, you have added to the confusion. That is false logic, big time, as Shrewd Operator demonstrates.
The position that is anathematised is to deny that the sacrament of baptism rightly administered applies the said merit of Jesus Christ to both adults and infants, not to affirm that those same merits may be applied to souls by Our Lord using means other than the sacramental rite.
To Shrewd Operator and Plenus Venter,
If you beak the proposition out of context it indeed does not prohibit a different method of the application of Christ's merit, but again, only out of context. I will answer in two ways; first I will allow your strict adherence to the logic of the proposition and second I will defend my position via the context.
1: The BOD adherent has appealed to a strictly logical reading of a universal Catholic dogmatic proposition, so be it.
"CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." Trent.
(Everyone saved is baptized.) This is in the section of Trent concerning Baptism. The BOD adherent must claim BOD is included in this canon when the Fathers of Trent say Baptism so they avoid anathema, even though this is Trent's chapter on the sacraments.
So be it.
"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." Trent. (All baptisms require true and natural water.) Here the BOD adherent must claim the Fathers of Trent excluded BOD when they say baptism in the section of Trent concerning baptism.
If everyone saved is baptized and every baptism includes water, well then the BOD adherent's position is illogical. Unless baptism doesn't mean the same thing as baptism when written three short canons later, which is illogical. Or does BOD includes water???
Thank you,
JoeZ
-
To Shrewd Operator and Plenus Venter,
If you beak the proposition out of context it indeed does not prohibit a different method of the application of Christ's merit, but again, only out of context. I will answer in two ways; first I will allow your strict adherence to the logic of the proposition and second I will defend my position via the context.
1: The BOD adherent has appealed to a strictly logical reading of a universal Catholic dogmatic proposition, so be it.
"CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." Trent.
(Everyone saved is baptized.) This is in the section of Trent concerning Baptism. The BOD adherent must claim BOD is included in this canon when the Fathers of Trent say Baptism so they avoid anathema, even though this is Trent's chapter on the sacraments.
So be it.
"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." Trent. (All baptisms require true and natural water.) Here the BOD adherent must claim the Fathers of Trent excluded BOD when they say baptism in the section of Trent concerning baptism.
If everyone saved is baptized and every baptism includes water, well then the BOD adherent's position is illogical. Unless baptism doesn't mean the same thing as baptism when written three short canons later, which is illogical. Or does BOD includes water???
Thank you,
JoeZ
They claim BoD has the effect of the sacrament but without the actual water.
-
Who knows? Some Church Fathers seem to think that they were baptized. God could easily raise all the OT Just back to life, even if for a moment, to have an angel baptize them. God could of course impart the baptismal character on the OT Just in an extraordinary manner, but there's also nothing stopping Him from raising them all back to life, having them baptized, and then enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That character of Baptism is essential for the Beatific Vision, because it's precisely what imparts the supernatural faculty (which we lack by nature) to see God as He is.
Dimond Brothers made a great video about all the Patristic opinion in favor of the OT just being raised back to life and Baptized. I knew there was some out there, but had no idea there was so much in favor of that opinion.
I think for all practical intents and purposes a baptism performed at the resurrection of the dead would count as BOD, but fair enough. I misunderstood your position a bit
I think both sides Deal with some version or variant of the “constraining God” problem. God could make sure everyone who is elect is water baptized, but he also COULD provide the graces of the sacrament without any physical administration. Neither possibility violates any law of logic, the question between both sides is what God does do not what he could
-
Traditionally Catechumens did not receive Christian burials.
https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1279210690322984961
https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1651666572052689078
This guy has plenty of evidence against BoD. Some of which the dimonds even used to make videos months after he posted.
-
I think for all practical intents and purposes a baptism performed at the resurrection of the dead would count as BOD, but fair enough. I misunderstood your position a bit
I think both sides Deal with some version or variant of the “constraining God” problem. God could make sure everyone who is elect is water baptized, but he also COULD provide the graces of the sacrament without any physical administration. Neither possibility violates any law of logic, the question between both sides is what God does do not what he could
The problem with this is that God Himself instituted the sacrament and said it was required to enter heaven. And His Church alsk affirms the sacrament requires purr and natural water, hot or cold.
Without the actual water you cannot know if a person is actually baptised, because the physical part is also a visible sign of the invisible Spiritual things that occur.
I also ask you this, can God flood the earth again to destroy all flesh?
-
2:The BOD adherent has taken a universal Catholic dogmatic proposition out of context in order to claim a different meaning from what is plainly written. (This is part 2 of my reply above)
A: The Fifth Session of Trent deals with "not only new, but even old, dissensions touching original sin, and the remedy thereof " and yet in it there is no mention of any remedy except sacramental baptism. The BOD adherent must invent something that isn't there and further pretend the Fathers at Trent neglected to discuss it.
B: The third chapter, which I quoted in full, is a two part proposition with immediate scriptural support for each, the second being
"As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.". The third chapter also restricts the definition of baptized so narrow that BOD becomes impossible so the BOD adherent must deny the logic of the scriptural support (only the baptized participate in Christ's merit).
C: The remedy for Original Sin spoken of in chapter 3 is clearly singular and no change is indicated as the chapter progresses from one proposition to the next.
D: When you read the word baptism it isn't enough to understand it as just that sacrament where they pour water. When coupled with all the dogmatic statements requiring baptism for salvation and coupling water to baptism and the absolute necessity of baptismal character, that was explained above, a Catholic can only come to the right conclusion. The word baptism has a meaning only the Catholic can properly understand and it is the context of chapter three that makes any other reading of it anathema.
Please allow an example.
If I say Brenda is my beautiful wife that actually means something different to you Catholics depending on who I am. If I am a Protestant, the Catholic will wonder if she is my first wife or not because if not she may well not be my wife at all. If I am a Mormon I may think she is my wife but because I have three others as well, you Catholics know full well she is in fact not my wife. To the Catholic the word baptism means that unique and necessary sacrament where Christ redeems us and imprints His character. Baptism has an inseparable bond between the water and the Holy Ghost, as Christ said and Trent warned us against treating it as a metaphor. The word sacrament means those vehicles God gave us to transmit Christ's life to us, there are no other ways. That's the Catholic understanding and it clearly precludes all other possibilities.
I pray I've helped,
JoeZ
-
Having put aside the absurd distraction and (deliberate?) waste of time regarding Dismas, can any BoDer refute what I wrote above? Conclusion, no Patristic consensus whatsoever in favor of BoD, and in fact, near-unanimous consensus AGAINST it.
bump for Lads post,
sorry to pile on past this.
-
Having put aside the absurd distraction and (deliberate?) waste of time regarding Dismas, can any BoDer refute what I wrote above? Conclusion, no Patristic consensus whatsoever in favor of BoD, and in fact, near-unanimous consensus AGAINST it.
I already said I wasn't going to revisit the BoD issue here. I came in on St. Dismas because you posted a Dimond video that you said was "great," and which began with the claim that Dismas didn't enter heaven, as if that were settled and "proof" against any relevance of his situation to a BoD position.
I noted the Scriptural use of "paradise," where Christ said Dismas would be with him "this day," and questioned the Dimond assertion. That questioning of the Dimond claim is supported by Haydock, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem - in addition to the rather clear testimony of Scripture in its 3 uses of the term "paradise."
What is ironic is your attempt at mockery as follows in this post which you edited after I quoted it in my reply (quoted in my reply #50):
So I guess that Dismas was waiting already in Heaven before Our Lord, St. Joseph, or St. John the Baptist got there, waiting to greet them. So Dismas, according to Decem, was the first soul in Heaven. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif) That's how sad it gets when he's desperate to attack the Dimond Brothers.
This is rich: the claim that Dismas preceded Our Lord in His humanity into heaven (which I did'nt make btw) was made by none other than the great Catholic Biblical Scholar Cornelius Lapide:
Ver. 43.—And Jesus said unto him. Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise. That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in the beatitude and beatific vision of God, i.e. To-day I will make thee for ever happy; I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with me this day. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Lect. c. 13); S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latrone); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Serm. on the Resurrection); S. Augustine (Tract. 111 on John). He explains paradise by heaven, that is celestial beatitude. It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven. For where Christ is, there is paradise; where, the vision and beatitude of God, there, heaven. For, as to what Euthymius and other Greeks say, denying that the souls of the saints see God before the judgment and are happy: by paradise they understand an earthly place; that to which Enoch was carried. But it cannot be so—for it is of the faith that Christ, shortly after His death went down in infernum—that is, the limbus of the Fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise. It is, moreover, uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining. But grant that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only. Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, Calvin, and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but there behold God, and are beatified by a vision of Him.
Yes, Lad, there is a message here regarding "desperation," here exhibited by your use of mockery in defense of the Dimond's against my challenge to their "proof" about St. Dismas.
Sorry, that was too delicious an irony to pass up . . .
Now you can go debate BoD, and post Dimond videos, to your heart's content.
-
They claim BoD has the effect of the sacrament but without the actual water.
I fully understand what the BOD adherent will do which is why I lead with the argument from the declaration on original sin. The Cushingite is forced to appeal to logic to defeat me there (and they did) but it is a trap because now with their own insistence on a strictly logical reading of the dogmas, I can hang them with their own rope. Here is the syllogism they must now adhere to.
Council of Trent: Session Seven
Canon II; Baptism is necessary for salvation per Trent. (No ifs ands or buts.)
Canon V; Water is necessary for baptism per Trent. (No ifs ands or buts.)
Therefore, water is necessary for salvation. That is the strictly logical reading of the canons II and V in the decree on baptism in the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent.
Case closed.
Deo Gracias
JoeZ
-
I fully understand what the BOD adherent will do which is why I lead with the argument from the declaration on original sin. The Cushingite is forced to appeal to logic to defeat me there (and they did) but it is a trap because now with their own insistence on a strictly logical reading of the dogmas, I can hang them with their own rope. Here is the syllogism they must now adhere to.
Council of Trent: Session Seven
Canon II; Baptism is necessary for salvation per Trent. (No ifs ands or buts.)
Canon V; Water is necessary for baptism per Trent. (No ifs ands or buts.)
Therefore, water is necessary for salvation. That is the strictly logical reading of the canons II and V in the decree on baptism in the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent.
Case closed.
Deo Gracias
JoeZ
They usually say BoD still uses the graces from the water, just applied differently.
-
It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven.
The bolded could be understood to mean, as you seem to understand it, that the thief went alone to heaven, but it could also be understood rightly, in context, to mean that neither Christ nor the thief went immediately to heaven. That is why the sentence continues to immediately explain how the thief experienced paradise in the Limbus Patrum.
Your reading comprehension is lacking, Lapide agrees with us and the Dimonds.
-
The problem with this is that God Himself instituted the sacrament and said it was required to enter heaven. And His Church also affirms the sacrament requires pure and natural water, hot or cold.
Without the actual water you cannot know if a person is actually baptised, because the physical part is also a visible sign of the invisible Spiritual things that occur.
I also ask you this, can God flood the earth again to destroy all flesh?
Good post.
-
The bolded could be understood to mean, as you seem to understand it, that the thief went alone to heaven, but it could also be understood rightly, in context, to mean that neither Christ nor the thief went immediately to heaven. That is why the sentence continues to immediately explain how the thief experienced paradise in the Limbus Patrum.
Your reading comprehension is lacking, Lapide agrees with us and the Dimonds.
Marulus,
:laugh1::laugh2::jester:
This says it all about the mindset of the cult.I've screenshot this classic. Unbelievable. This is probably the most . . . wow.
Just wow.
I'm very sorry for you.
Try hypnotism maybe . . . but you have to want it.
Wow.
-
Link to this article? I know the Dimond Brothers speak of it, but I have never seen the contents. I did find this post in a very old thread. The title ("Baptism of Desire and of Blood") of the article does not appear to be the one the DB's used ("The Salvation of Those Outside the Church"). It also appears that they never post any of the content:
CMRI priest confirms their belief in salvation for non-Catholics - page 4 - The Feeneyism Ghetto - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/cmri-priest-confirms-their-belief-in-salvation-for-non-catholics/msg308372/#msg308372)
Reading more in the above linked thread, I see that former member Myrna (RIP) posted scans of the article in the library, but for some reason those links are no longer accessible. I'm assuming because the post was made so long ago.
It sure would be nice to actually read what Fr Barbara wrote and not just go off a title. Outside Myrna's post, any time I search for the article on CI, the only thing I find are posters copying and pasting what the DB's post on their site (which only includes the name of the publication, Reign of Mary, and the few issues/numbers and years published).
-
Reading more in the above linked thread, I see that former member Myrna (RIP) posted scans of the article in the library, but for some reason those links are no longer accessible. I'm assuming because the post was made so long ago.
It sure would be nice to actually read what Fr Barbara wrote and not just go off a title. Outside Myrna's post, any time I search for the article on CI, the only thing I find are posters copying and pasting what the DB's post on their site (which only includes the name of the publication, Reign of Mary, and the few issues/numbers and years published).
I think this is it, 2V:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-salvation-of-those-outside-the-church/msg403803/#msg403803
-
Still going on about the Dismas distraction?
Dimond Brothers: Dismas is no proof for Baptism of Desire.
Decem: Yes, he is, because he went to Heaven that day.
Decem has to prove not only that Dismas went to Heaven that day (rather than to the Bosom of Abraham, e.g. Limbus Patrum, which is also referred to as "paradise") AND that Dismas wasn't baptized before he went to Heaven "that day", neither of which can be proven.
Move along now.
-
Still going on about the Dismas distraction?
Dimond Brothers: Dismas is no proof for Baptism of Desire.
Decem: Yes, he is, because he went to Heaven that day.
Decem has to prove not only that Dismas went to Heaven that day (rather than to the Bosom of Abraham, e.g. Limbus Patrum, which is also referred to as "paradise") AND that Dismas wasn't baptized before he went to Heaven "that day", neither of which can be proven.
Move along now.
Also he died under the old law so it's a moot point.
-
Also he died under the old law so it's a moot point.
Right. It's a moot point with regard to the larger question of BoD. It's only relevant to the position that some Church Fathers appeared to hold that the OT Just were baptized before they entered Heaven. Even IF one claims (though it's unproven and unprovable) that Dismas entered Heaven on Good Friday, that STILL doesn't prevent him from having been baptized first (as some Church Fathers believed happened). It's one of the most absurd lines of argument I've seen here in a long time.
-
Still going on about the Dismas distraction?
Dimond Brothers: Dismas is no proof for Baptism of Desire.
Decem: Yes, he is, because he went to Heaven that day.
Decem has to prove not only that Dismas went to Heaven that day (rather than to the Bosom of Abraham, e.g. Limbus Patrum, which is also referred to as "paradise") AND that Dismas wasn't baptized before he went to Heaven "that day", neither of which can be proven.
Move along now.
As will be apparent to anyone who has read this thread, I never entered the discussion to support BoD, or used St. Dismas for such. I said exactly why I did -
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/apparently-some-reject-bob-and-bod/msg927102/#msg927102
Now go blunder into laughing at someone else like Cornelius Lapide.
-
As will be apparent to anyone who has read this thread, I never entered the discussion to support BoD, or used St. Dismas for such. I said exactly why I did -
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/apparently-some-reject-bob-and-bod/msg927102/#msg927102
Now go blunder into laughing at someone else like Cornelius Lapide.
Or laugh at St. Chrysostom or St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
Haydock Commentary on Luke 23:43
Ver. 43. I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise; i.e. in a place of rest with the souls of the just. . . . . St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, says he entered heaven before all the patriarchs and prophets. St. Chrysostom thinks that paradise was immediately open to him, and that he entered heaven the first mankind. (Tom. v. homil. 32.)
Ladislaus:
So I guess that Dismas was waiting already in Heaven before Our Lord, St. Joseph, or St. John the Baptist got there, waiting to greet them. So Dismas, according to Decem, was the first soul in Heaven. :laugh1: title=laugh1 That's how sad it gets when he's desperate to attack the Dimond Brothers.
-
As will be apparent to anyone who has read this thread, I never entered the discussion to support BoD, or used St. Dismas for such. I said exactly why I did -
We know what you were doing, using it to attack the Dimond Brothers, where there's absolutely no grounds for it other than your personal opinion. You weren't using it in support of BoD, but to reject the notion that Dismas could have been baptized before he went to Heaven, since you're hell bent on rejecting the necessity of Baptism for entry into the Kingdom of God. It was the Brothers who were merely rejecting it as an argument for BoD. Your line of argument is idiotic, just like the one you made recently about the Fatima prayer.
I'll go with the Catechism of Trent on this one, which states that Our Lord opened the Gates of Heaven at His Ascension, the idea being that Our Lord should clearly be the first to enter. We see in Sacred Scripture that the tombs were opened and the dead raised after Our Lord's Resurrection. So I guess they were dragged out of Heaven to pull of this particular spectacle, eh?
Of course, you use the same Catechism to try to beat down BoDers while somehow here rejecting what it said about when the Gates of Heaven were opened. So it's an unassailable, practically infallible, authority where you agree with it, but where you disagree you feel free to reject it.
You just cherry-pick whatever you want that backs your opinion, similar to the CMRI thread with which this thread opened, where they present only the evidence in favor of their agenda and ignore all the rest, giving the false impression that there's some kind of unanimous consensus on the matter, where the truth is far from it.
All of these contradictions and hypocrisies expose the intellectual dishonesty of BoDers, who refuse to look at the objective evidence. I laid out the objective truth regarding the status quaestionis among the Church Fathers, but that was distracted from with this nonsense.
-
We know what you were doing, using it to attack the Dimond Brothers, where there's absolutely no grounds for it other than your personal opinion.
If you really believe that you're almost as bad as Marsulus in reading comprehension.
The Dimonds said St. Dismas didn't enter heaven. They never mentioned the contrary authority, which is abundant.
Christ indeed opened the gates of heaven, and yet Dismas by his "special privilege" (Haydock - concordant with Lapide, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome I believe as well, minimally) may have been there "before," since you're obsessed with geography and time - which accords with Scripture. All men are born corrupt and in sin, and yet there is the Blessed Mother, and her privilege.
Apparently the Dimonds have the same blind spot as you, and see "absolutely no ground[] . . ." because, like you, they're all at sea.
Don't get swallowed by Leviathan.
-
St. Dismas entering heaven immediately upon death as a result of Christ's work and Passion does not deny the truth of Christ opening the gates of heaven for the OT just and the rest of mankind.
You guys read something or hear something and your minds go into a default mode - "can I use this to deny BoD or some other teaching that I reject, don't like, would prefer not to be true," etc.
Truly pathetic.
-
I think this is it, 2V:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-salvation-of-those-outside-the-church/msg403803/#msg403803
I think you're right. Thank you.
-
I think you're right. Thank you.
This article, like all the others that are pro BoD are nothing but an exercise in begging the question, petitio principii, where they assume that those who aren't Catholics MUST be able to be saved somehow, and then they go in search of novel explanations, interpretations, and redefinitions of terms ... to make it so. I have not seen one single OBJECTIVE treatment of the subject in the myriad volumes of pro-BoD literature.
-
I found this part interesting:
Now, even though these non-Catholics belong to Christ by
means of their union with the Soul of His Church, one should
nevertheless never forget that they are in a state "where no
one can be sure of his eternal salvation; for, as the Pope
assures us, they are deprived of those many and most important
supports and heavenly favors that can only be found within the
bosom of the Catholic Church" ("Mystici Corporis Christi").
Let us consider some of those helps of which they are deprived.....
It seems that these people are so deprived that their chances of salvation are, at best, extremely low.
This is why I prefer to avoid discussion of BOD. Our focus should be to pray that our non-Catholic friends/family members request baptism before they die.
-
It seems that these people are so deprived that their chances of salvation are, at best, extremely low.
This is why I prefer to avoid discussion of BOD. Our focus should be to pray that our non-Catholic friends/family members request baptism before they die.
So, the focus with the BoD issue isn't so much about "their chances of salvation". Utlimately that's up to God.
What it's about and why it's so important is because of its implications for Catholic ecclesiology.
Because no one can deny that EENS is dogma (it's been solemnly defined at least 3 times), the only way to "get" non-Catholics saved is to re-define the Church ... pretty much exactly the same way Vatican II did.
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. [dogma]
MINOR: Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox can be saved (without converting before they die obviously).
CONCLUSION: Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox can be IN the Church somehow.
That conclusion is in fact Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell, and all the Vatican II errors rest upon that conclusion. If I believed that Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox could be saved, I would have to accept Vatican II as correct and not being in error.
So, the main way even Trads accomplish this is by the "soul" vs. "body" distinction. But Msgr. Fenton rightly points out that this distinction, where you posit a "soul" of the Church that is not co-extensive with the "body" (i.e. at soul that extends out farther than the body) ... is illegitimate and was in fact condemned by Pius XII. So his solution is to claim that someone can be IN the Church (body and soul) without being a member OF the Church, so the "within" vs. "member of" distinction. Either way one tries to justify it, however, both of these approaches effectively justify Vatican II ecclesiology. This is, alas, why Msgr. Fenton ultimately concluded that V2 ecclesiology represented an "improvement" over past teaching.
THIS is why it's so important, and the Trads who can't see it don't actually understand the errors of Vatican II and are basically schismatic for rejecting Vatican II while holding the very same ecclesiology that V2 does.
We get that a lot here. "Who cares? It doesn't matter." Oh, it absolutely matters because depending upon how we fall on the issue we do or do not have any legitimate reason to reject Vatican II.
Now, this applies more to the "extended" version of BoD, vs. where a Catechumen who pretty much intends to become Catholics could be considered to have a partial or imperfect membership in the Church. So whether there's a BoD at all (as St. Robert held it, for instance, as applying only to Catechumens) is a separate issue that often gets conflated with the broader / extended BoD.
God is not bound by impossibility, and it would be no effort whatsoever on His part to get the Sacrament to His elect, period, no matter what. As St. Thomas stated, He would send an angel to preach the Gospel to one who's invincibly ignorant if necessary. That same angel could also baptize the person. There's no need for a BoD whatsoever. Saints have raised people back to life to baptize them, and God could obviously do the same. God established Baptism as necessary by necessity of means (whereas Fr. Barbara incorrectly implied that it's necessary of precept only), and why would He suddenly go back on His word and basically say, "Jesus didn't really mean it when He said no one could enter the Kingdom of Heaven without water AND the Holy Ghost. He was exaggerating." No one has given a satisfactory explanation for WHY God would wish some to be saved by BoD and others to be saved via the actual Sacrament ... when He has put such emphasis on its necessity.
-
I found this part interesting:
Now, even though these non-Catholics belong to Christ by
means of their union with the Soul of His Church, one should
nevertheless never forget that they are in a state "where no
one can be sure of his eternal salvation; for, as the Pope
assures us, they are deprived of those many and most important
supports and heavenly favors that can only be found within the
bosom of the Catholic Church" ("Mystici Corporis Christi").
Let us consider some of those helps of which they are deprived.....
It seems that these people are so deprived that their chances of salvation are, at best, extremely low.
This is why I prefer to avoid discussion of BOD. Our focus should be to pray that our non-Catholic friends/family members request baptism before they die.
I really dislike this excuse, the soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost... The Church is a BODY. These people come to ridiculous notions that those heretics and other non-Catholics have the Holy Ghost (ignoring substantial union of course) making them apart of the Church when the Church is the mystical BODY of Christ.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: 57 “… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “… the mystical body, the Church (corpore mystico)…”
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “… the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ…”
Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “… His mystical Body.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 64), June 29, 1943.
From what We have thus far written, and explained, Venerable Brethren, it is clear, We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possession a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life.[120] On the contrary, as Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church "is not complete, if only His visible human nature is considered..., or if only His divine, invisible nature..., but He is one through the union of both and one in both ... so is it with His Mystical Body"[121] since the Word of God took unto Himself a human nature liable to sufferings, so that He might consecrate in His blood the visible Society founded by Him and "lead man back to things invisible under a visible rule."[122]
Pope Eugene IV, in his famous Bull Cantate Domino, defined that the unity of the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis)
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…”
Pope Clement XIV, cuм Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943.
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: “It [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects and anathematizes all thinking opposed and contrary things, and declares them to be aliens from the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “So, with every reason for doubting removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any of those truths without thereby sending himself headlong into open heresy? without thereby separating himself from the Church and in one sweeping act repudiating the entirety of Christian doctrine?... he who dissents in even one point from divinely received truths has most truly cast off the faith completely, since he refuses to revere God as the supreme truth and proper motive of faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
-
I really dislike this excuse, the soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost... The Church is a BODY. These people come to ridiculous notions that those heretics and other non-Catholics have the Holy Ghost (ignoring substantial union of course) making them apart of the Church when the Church is the mystical BODY of Christ.
Msgr. Fenton wrote an article in which he denounced the body vs. soul dichotomy and presented some very solid theological reasons against it, including the teaching of Pius XII. I can't stand this distinction either, especially given how badly it's been abused. Of course, Msgr. Fenton concludes that someone can be in the body of the Church without being part of it, which I've referred to as "undigested hamburger ecclesiology", where you have something in the body without it being part of the body.
-
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. [dogma]
MINOR: Jєωs, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox can be saved (without converting before they die obviously).
CONCLUSION: Jєωs, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox can be IN the Church somehow.
The minor premise is false; these groups do not have invincible ignorance. Trads would not use or accept this syllogism.
Somebody above was asking if the other sacraments can also be received by desire. Penance can, as usually defined by perfect contrition. You would of course have the intention to receive Sacramental Penance to qualify. (see how that works! :jester:). All the other Sacraments are Sacraments of the Living, so you would already be in the State of Grace. The exception is the Eucharist because you can make Spiritual Communions, but they tend to be less efficacious than Sacramental Communions. ( see how that works :jester:).
Kinda fits with that quote above.
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…”
Anyway, I didn't know what a Cushingite was until I read this thread. They are the opposite of Feeneyites who hold the extended version of BOD like VII proponents.
I found this thread when I was searching for it. Link below.
I hold the "middle" or 'Restricted" version of BOD as described in the letter from the Holy Office that they quote here.
https://www.aboutcatholics.com/discuss/topic/website-says-feeneyism-is-heresy-instead-of-cushingism/
-
Is the Baltimore Catechism a bad source for this discussion? Because here is what it says on the matter.
-
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. [dogma]
MINOR: Jєωs, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox can be saved (without converting before they die obviously).
CONCLUSION: Jєωs, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox can be IN the Church somehow.
The minor premise is false; these groups do not have invincible ignorance. Trads would not use or accept this syllogism.
Somebody above was asking if the other sacraments can also be received by desire. Penance can, as usually defined by perfect contrition. You would of course have the intention to receive Sacramental Penance to qualify. (see how that works! :jester:). All the other Sacraments are Sacraments of the Living, so you would already be in the State of Grace. The exception is the Eucharist because you can make Spiritual Communions, but they tend to be less efficacious than Sacramental Communions. ( see how that works :jester:).
Kinda fits with that quote above.
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…”
Anyway, I didn't know what a Cushingite was until I read this thread. They are the opposite of Feeneyites who hold the extended version of BOD like VII proponents.
I found this thread when I was searching for it. Link below.
I hold the "middle" or 'Restricted" version of BOD as described in the letter from the Holy Office that they quote here.
https://www.aboutcatholics.com/discuss/topic/website-says-feeneyism-is-heresy-instead-of-cushingism/
Perfect contrition only works because your soul already has the mark of baptism. It cannot be said for BoD as there is no mark already on your soul. Spiritual communion is also not the same... This is faulty reasoning.
And there are 'trads' who extended BoD/BoB to non-catholics who deny Christ.
-
Is the Baltimore Catechism a bad source for this discussion? Because here is what it says on the matter.
Catechisms are not infallible. Modern catechisms are certainly not reliable.
-
I will also add that salvation in Invincible ignorance is nonsense because
1. Ignorance is a punishment for sin (an invincible ignorant person does not go to hell because of their ignorance but because of their other sins + original sin)
2. It is God's will that someone does not hear the Gospel. Ultimately making this doctrine a denial of God's will and Divine Providence, which is the same root issue with baptism of desire/blood.
-
I found this part interesting:
Now, even though these non-Catholics belong to Christ by
means of their union with the Soul of His Church, one should
nevertheless never forget that they are in a state "where no
one can be sure of his eternal salvation; for, as the Pope
assures us, they are deprived of those many and most important
supports and heavenly favors that can only be found within the
bosom of the Catholic Church" ("Mystici Corporis Christi").
Let us consider some of those helps of which they are deprived.....
It seems that these people are so deprived that their chances of salvation are, at best, extremely low.
This is why I prefer to avoid discussion of BOD. Our focus should be to pray that our non-Catholic friends/family members request baptism before they die.
I too really dislike how "the soul of the Church" has been misused in order to render the dogma meaningless.
In Scripture, the expressions “Kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of heaven” always refers to the Church, even though sometimes the application of the parables goes into eternity, beyond simply the Church’s life on earth. The same is to be said of when Christ mentions Himself in Scripture, "I am the way, the truth and the Life" He is saying the Church, which is Christ, is the way, is where the truth is found, and through Him, the Church, is the only way to life everlasting.
There is a lot of Scripture that takes on a whole new meaning and makes a lot more sense regarding EENS when it's read with this in mind.
All those bible citing prots who die outside of the Church, die without ever having known Christ.....
Mat. 7:22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name . 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Talk about a rude awakening.
:pray:
-
MAJOR: There's no salvation outside the Church. [dogma]
MINOR: Jєωs, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox can be saved (without converting before they die obviously).
CONCLUSION: Jєωs, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox can be IN the Church somehow.
The minor premise is false; these groups do not have invincible ignorance. Trads would not use or accept this syllogism.
You're completely wrong. Trads absolutely do accept the Minor. Just the Trad clergy I know of (off the top of my head) who have publicly stated their belief in the Minor: Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Sanborn, etc. We can see in the discussion we've had on this forum that 90%+ of those promote Baptism of Desire believe that non-Catholics can be saved.
If you do not, then more power to you, and my disagreement about the existence of Baptism of Desire (in the restricted sense) is an academic one. Over the years, I can count on one hand the number of BoD proponents who do not believe that non-Catholics can be saved.
-
I hold the "middle" or 'Restricted" version of BOD as described in the letter from the Holy Office that they quote here.
No, the "letter from the Holy Office" (completely disputed) does not promote a "middle" or "restricted" version of BoD. I'd like to believe that you hold a restricted version of BoD, but we've had others claim this that when you scratched just a tiny bit below the surface, you find that it's not true.
I actually coined the term "Cushingites" here on CI many years ago ... as a retort to the constant pejorative / derogatory use of the term "Feeneyite" as a programmed attack term, just like "conspiracy theorist" or the pejorative use of the term "Lefebvrist" by the Conciliars, all of which are calculated to make it sound like some sectarian (personality-based) heresy out of the gate, reminiscent of "Arianism, Nestorianims, etc.".
-
What I am contesting is that St. Dismas and the other saints entered Heaven, the place, before Christ's ascension.
I'd agree with this. I tended to believe it was at the Resurrection, but given the Catechism of Trent and the notion that it would only be fitting if Christ were the first to enter Heaven, I would now hold that this happened at the Ascension also.
This would also make sense of how the bodies of the "saints" came out of their tombs and appeared to many after the Resurrection. Again, if Heaven had been opened, these dead saints were not in Heaven but somehow still meandering about the earth? For what purpose? As many Church Fathers held, it was to be baptized. That's probably also why only the bodies of the saints were said to have been raised, and not those of the reprobate.
This is from the Haydock commentary.
[Luke 23:43] "In paradise": That is, in the happy state of rest, joy, and peace everlasting. Christ was pleased, by a special privilege, to reward the faith and confession of the penitent thief, with a full discharge of all his sins, both as to the guilt and punishment; and to introduce him immediately after death into the happy society of the saints, whose limbo, that is, the place of their confinement, was now made a paradise by our Lord's going thither.
-
No, the "letter from the Holy Office" (completely disputed) does not promote a "middle" or "restricted" version of BoD. I'd like to believe that you hold a restricted version of BoD, but we've had others claim this that when you scratched just a tiny bit below the surface, you find that it's not true.
I actually coined the term "Cushingites" here on CI many years ago ... as a retort to the constant pejorative / derogatory use of the term "Feeneyite" as a programmed attack term, just like "conspiracy theorist" or the pejorative use of the term "Lefebvrist" by the Conciliars, all of which are calculated to make it sound like some sectarian (personality-based) heresy out of the gate, reminiscent of "Arianism, Nestorianims, etc.".
Despite all the evidence posted here and the other thread the BoDers won't read it and we will go through this again next month.
-
I was baptized in January 1969 (Vatican II.
Is that ok?
-
I was baptized in January 1969 (Vatican II.
Is that ok?
While I'm sure that New Rite is at least valid, it is my understanding that it wasn't introduced until May 15, 1969 ... but someone could correct me if I'm wrong. Then it came into "force" on September 8, 1969 (where either Rite could be used), and then it was on Easter Sunday in 1970 where it became "mandatory" through a vacatio legis until then. I don't know the date Easter was in 1970. But I should think any Baptism prior to May 15, 1969 -- or perhaps even September 8, 1969 -- was done in the Traditional Rite.
-
I was baptized in 1972, but the priest was an Irishman who was pre-Vatican II ordained. I have no doubts about my Baptism. What is the problem here, the NO change to the preliminary prayers? To my knowledge there was no change to essence of Baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
-
While I'm sure that New Rite is at least valid, it is my understanding that it wasn't introduced until May 15, 1969 ... but someone could correct me if I'm wrong. Then it came into "force" on September 8, 1969 (where either Rite could be used), and then it was on Easter Sunday in 1970 where it became "mandatory" through a vacatio legis until then. I don't know the date Easter was in 1970. But I should think any Baptism prior to May 15, 1969 -- or perhaps even September 8, 1969 -- was done in the Traditional Rite.
I remember once coming across something indicating that the English-language ritual book for the refomed-rite baptism was not ready until 1971.
I cannot remember anything beyond this cloudy bit.
-
I was baptized in 1972, but the priest was an Irishman who was pre-Vatican II ordained. I have no doubts about my Baptism. What is the problem here, the NO change to the preliminary prayers? To my knowledge there was no change to essence of Baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
Yeah, there's nothing that would impact validity. Biggest problem with it is the removal of the exorcisms. It's also largely reframed as a "welcoming" into the Church, though there are some references in it to Baptism washing away sin.