Author Topic: Baptism of blood for infants. (Read 5059 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:41:06 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

To die for the Faith remits guilt and punishment for since and presupposes justice and divine charity. BoB has been referred to as a quasi-sacramant precisely because of this effect.

Well, infants cannot have the dispositions that are the necessary antecedents to justification, i.e. "justice and divine charity". In terms of the subjective dispositions of the martyred infants, since they have not reached the age of reason, they are in no way different than that of an infant who's, say, murdered by her mother in an abortion. So you're saying that BoB IS a Sacrament, i.e. that it works ex opere operato--which is very seriously problematic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:47:01 PM »

Quote from: Vladimir

On the contrary, there is a clear account of a man venerated as a saint that was a comedian acting in a play mocking the Sacrament of Baptism. He was "baptized" in the play, but was given the grace to realize the error of his ways. He began to confess the Catholic Faith and was immediately put to death. No valid water baptism there. There is even a clear footnote in the edition that I read (pre-Vatican II) that says that he received the Baptism of Desire.

Yes, Baptism of Desire was floating around well before Vatican II.

Quote

Also another clear account in the early Roman persecutions of a baby put to death with his mother - unbaptized. Both the mother (who was baptized) and the unbaptized babies are venerated as saints.

Again, I suspect that the account you mention does not clearly state that they were not baptized. Are they venerated / canonized by the Universal Church?

In many quarters today, John Paul II is also "venerated as a saint".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:50:58 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

In other words, the liturgy of the Church is utterly worthless as a source of theology. If the question revolves around the loose usage of the term 'catechumen' then I suppose the next step would be for you to actually provide evidence of this fact.

No, the burden of proof rests upon you. I will dig up later today some texts which refer to post-baptismal neophytes in need of further instruction as "catechumens". QED, the reference to martyred catechumens in the martyrologies does not prove BoB. To assert that this PROVES BoB means that the burden of proof is on you. I need only demonstrate that it does NOT prove BoB, not that it proves NOT BoB.

And, no the martyrologies are not infallible either.

Caminus · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:27:22 PM »

Quote

no the martyrologies are not infallible either.

Nor, obviously, are you.

Caminus · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:34:13 PM »

Quote

Then you explain why there was a Limbo of the Fathers in the first place, eh? Those people in the Limbo of the Fathers had the antecedent dispositions necessary but not the "justification itself" which Trent defines as coming AFTER those dispositions which BoD advocates claim justify.

Why is there a purgatory for souls who die in a state of grace? You must posit some other notion, i.e. something other than grace, in order to radically divorce in the proper sense justification from sanctification. To dispose something towards something else presupposes that there is no possession yet. Are you prepared to assert that all of the just Fathers of the old testament were actually in a state of mortal sin, in enmity against God, their "dispositions to receive grace" notwithstanding? Or should we not rather assert that God suspended, by divine positive law, the full fruition of sanctifying grace, i.e. the beatific vision, until after the work of Redemption? The latter preserves doctrine, whereas the former posits absurdity.

Quote

THAT is the very meaning and significance of the dogma that Christ descended into "hell" (i.e. the nether regions). Those souls were suspended in a pre-justified state until Christ applied the fruits of His Passion to them. They were not in a state of sanctifying grace or justification when they died. You're confusing the new dispensation with how this worked for the "just" in the old dispensation.

Christ descended into hell in order to "liberate the captives" who were awaiting Redemption to enter heaven. To infer your theory is unwarranted. Justification must happen in the wayfaring state, lest you fall into Balthasar's error. You concede the Blessed Virgin as an "exception" and arbitrarily dismiss Moses, Abraham, et. al. because you have adopted an opinion at variance with catholic doctrine. Thus you are forced into absurdity.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:34:49 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
no the martyrologies are not infallible either.

Nor, obviously, are you.

:sign-surrender: concedo

Caminus · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:36:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Caminus
In other words, the liturgy of the Church is utterly worthless as a source of theology. If the question revolves around the loose usage of the term 'catechumen' then I suppose the next step would be for you to actually provide evidence of this fact.

No, the burden of proof rests upon you. I will dig up later today some texts which refer to post-baptismal neophytes in need of further instruction as "catechumens". QED, the reference to martyred catechumens in the martyrologies does not prove BoB. To assert that this PROVES BoB means that the burden of proof is on you. I need only demonstrate that it does NOT prove BoB, not that it proves NOT BoB.

And, no the martyrologies are not infallible either.

The burden is relieved by pointing to positive sources. No one claims that taken by itself, there is an infallible determination. Rather, it is part of the entire corpus that compels assent. It's not my fault that you ridiculously dismiss the sources of theology as "non-infallible" or appeal even appeal to a philological issue.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:43:44 PM »

Your understanding of Christ's descent into hell is deeply flawed.

"Liberate the captives" from what? Why couldn't they just enter right away if the fruits of Our Lord's Passion had been applied to them antecedently? Why are they held "captive" if they're justified and in a state of grace? If the fruits of Our Lord's Passion had been applied to them antecedently, then they have by definition already liberated. Your opinion is absurd for holding that they're somehow being held captive for no particular reason.

Vladimir · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:11:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Vladimir
On the contrary, there is a clear account of a man venerated as a saint that was a comedian acting in a play mocking the Sacrament of Baptism. He was "baptized" in the play, but was given the grace to realize the error of his ways. He began to confess the Catholic Faith and was immediately put to death. No valid water baptism there. There is even a clear footnote in the edition that I read (pre-Vatican II) that says that he received the Baptism of Desire.

Yes, Baptism of Desire was floating around well before Vatican II.

Quote
Also another clear account in the early Roman persecutions of a baby put to death with his mother - unbaptized. Both the mother (who was baptized) and the unbaptized babies are venerated as saints.

Again, I suspect that the account you mention does not clearly state that they were not baptized. Are they venerated / canonized by the Universal Church?

In many quarters today, John Paul II is also "venerated as a saint".

Reference to John Paul II is completely irrelevant.

I believe that the book did explicitly say that the child was not baptized. I will look it up in the near future (maybe not today or tomorrow) and post the actual account though.

EDIT: and yes I believe that they are venerated by the Universal Church.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:22:36 PM »

Vladimir said:

Quote

Also another clear account in the early Roman persecutions of a baby put to death with his mother - unbaptized. Both the mother (who was baptized) and the unbaptized babies are venerated as saints.

This is in Victories of the Martyrs by St. Alphonsus? Can you reproduce it for us? That source, of course, is not as venerable as the Roman Martyrology.

I would like to see how this can be reconciled with the Roman Catechism ( Trent ) and Florence.

Council of Florence --

Quote

"Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days..."

This is devastating to the possibility of infant baptism of blood, because Florence singles out the sacrament of baptism, i.e. water baptism. There is no decree saying that adults must receive the sacrament of baptism, which is the loophole for BoD believers like myself. But here, for infants, the sacrament itself is deemed crucial.

The only way out I can see is if Florence is speaking of a natural death, and it is not taking into account a possible violent death. But that is a stretch.

As I have said, in witchcraft, infant sacrifice has always received its perceived efficacy from what witches believe to be the fact that unbaptized babies, when killed, do not go to heaven. I don't know anyone else but Suarez who ever said that babies could be saved by baptism of blood in the New Testament era, and Suarez is not reputable. He unashamedly revived the idea of a middle place between hell and heaven for unbaptized infants -- he was a Pelagian heretic with no question.

As for the Holy Innocents, what Ladislaus is saying is or should be de fide. They were saved by the now-abrogated dispensation, the Old Law. There shouldn't be any argument about this. St. Alphonsus was in error, just as St. Augustine was when he pointed to the Good Thief as an example of baptism of desire. "Paradise" means the Limbo of the Fathers, so when Christ said the Thief would be in paradise He meant "hell," where Christ then descended to liberate the Thief and Abraham and Elijah and the whole gang of Old Testament chosen ones.

Catechism of the Council of Trent --

Quote

"Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Again I call on all of us baptism of desire believers to be consistent. ( I believe in BoD for catechumens only, or at least for those who have some explicit desire to join the Catholic Church ). If we cannot be consistent and win our case, and we have to fudge evidence, then we are wrong.

We can't appeal to this passage from the Roman Catechism when it serves us, and then reject it when it serves us. It has often been used to draw a distinction between infants, who cannot have baptism of desire, from adults, who the Catechism suggests can be saved by baptism of desire.
But if it helps to prove baptism of desire for adults, it equally disproves baptism of desire or blood for infants.

Why did St. Alphonsus trust Suarez and Lugo after many of their propositions were censured? That right there is disturbing.

Caminus · « **Reply #25 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:28:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Your understanding of Christ's descent into hell is deeply flawed.

"Liberate the captives" from what? Why couldn't they just enter right away if the fruits of Our Lord's Passion had been applied to them antecedently? Why are they held "captive" if they're justified and in a state of grace? If the fruits of Our Lord's Passion had been applied to them antecedently, then they have by definition already liberated. Your opinion is absurd for holding that they're somehow being held captive for no particular reason.

Rather than attempting to point out the alleged absurdity of an act of divine positive law, maybe you should attempt to explain the even greater absurdity regarding how a soul that is not in a state of grace does not immediately, upon death, descend into hell, properly so-called, to suffer eternal punishment.

Matthew · « **Reply #26 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:32:16 PM »

You forget that many times something is such a "given" it won't be mentioned explicitly.

Such as someone dying for the Faith going to heaven -- many writers wouldn't waste their ink defending something so obvious.

That is why we Catholics need a living, teaching magisterium, to explain away these written difficulties in Scripture, the Fathers, writings of the Saints, etc. -- to explain their proper meaning.

The protestant way -- private interpretation -- doesn't work. It leads to sects, and sects of sects because each man has his own opinion that he is attached to.

Matthew

Ladislaus · « **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:49:12 PM »

Quote from: Vladimir

Reference to John Paul II is completely irrelevant.

Not entirely, my point having been that veneration by some of the faithful is not tantamount to a canonization.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #28 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:54:01 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

This is devastating to the possibility of infant baptism of blood, because Florence singles out the sacrament of baptism, i.e. water baptism. There is no decree saying that adults must receive the sacrament of baptism, which is the loophole for BoD believers like myself. But here, for infants, the sacrament itself is deemed crucial.

That was my point to Caminus precisely, which he summarily dismissed, that since infants have not reached the age of reason, BoB would have to work ex opere operato, i.e. would have to be a sacrament, which it's not. Only adults can form the dispositions required for Baptism and, therefore, receive BoD and BoB (even IF you believe in these).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #29 on:** March 17, 2010, 04:04:01 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: Ladislaus
Your understanding of Christ's descent into hell is deeply flawed.

"Liberate the captives" from what? Why couldn't they just enter right away if the fruits of Our Lord's Passion had been applied to them antecedently? Why are they held "captive" if they're justified and in a state of grace? If the fruits of Our Lord's Passion had been applied to them antecedently, then they have by definition already liberated. Your opinion is absurd for holding that they're somehow being held captive for no particular reason.

Because God in His Infinite Mercy created something called the Limbo of the Fathers for precisely this reason, to allow the just from the old dispensation to wait for justification by Our Lord. As I've pointed, out, that's WHY this Limbo of the Fathers exists at all. Otherwise, per your explanation regarding antecedent application to all the just in the old dispensation, it would be entirely useless.