Author Topic: Baptism of blood for infants. (Read 22155 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 17, 2010, 08:07:48 PM »

Caminus said:

Quote

You ignored the absurdity you posited. What you claim would not be "mercy," rather, it would be incoherence with the whole of revelation. So, you wish to think, contrary to the explicit testimony of Scripture, that Abraham and Moses, for example, were NOT justified, in fact, they lived and died in a state of mortal sin.

What the hey? Are you actually denying the limbo of the Fathers, Caminus? Abraham and Moses sweated it out in limbo until Christ delivered them... That is a fact. I even have an oratorio by Alessandro Scarlatti where the prophets are all sitting around in limbo waiting to be freed by Christ, whose advent they are anticipating with great eagerness due to their miserable conditions.

Here it is in case anyone wants it. It's good:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scarlatti-Cantata-per-notte-natale/dp/B000005W4T

Abraham and Moses lived and died in a state of original sin. Some of the Old Testament just must have had mortal sins, though -- David, Solomon, Adam and Eve, Noah who got stinking drunk once. Maybe that last was unintentional.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** March 17, 2010, 08:18:34 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

You ignored the absurdity you posited. What you claim would not be "mercy," rather, it would be incoherence with the whole of revelation. So, you wish to think, contrary to the explicit testimony of Scripture, that Abraham and Moses, for example, were NOT justified, in fact, they lived and died in a state of mortal sin.

Very interestingly, the distinction you make, that people can be justified (have the theological virtues) and yet not be able to enter heaven backs up Father Feeney's distinction between justification and salvation.

They remained in a state of Original Sin, which is different than actual mortal sin. When they were finally justified upon Our Lord's descent into hell, I'm sure that God imputed to them their good deeds as if they had been freed from Original Sin. So St. Paul spoke of Abraham's faith being "reckoned" or "reputed" to him as righteousness/justification. Jesus said that St. John the Baptist was the greatest man ever born of woman but less than the least in the Kingdom of God.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** March 17, 2010, 08:29:50 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

It would appear then that St. Cyprian is the earliest to teach BoB for catechumens. That means I don't have much greater antiquity than St. Augustine on my side, as I'd thought. But just because something isn't universally accepted or understood by 300 AD or even 1500 AD doesn't mean it doesn't have a link to the Apostles. I refer again to the Immaculate Conception.

Remember, though, that with St. Cyprian, in the EXACT same treatise in which he brings up BoB for catechumens, he introduces another grave error regarding Baptism, that there can be no valid Baptism administered by heretics. And I'm guessing that the other five Fathers who held BoB for catechumens afterwards may have just been following him. You can find just as many Fathers I'm sure who followed / agreed with St. Cyprian that heretics didn't have valid Baptism.

Is it POSSIBLE that this came from the Apostles? Sure. But do we have any proof that it did? No, we don't.

One clue is that the Fathers who support BoB clearly misapply Our Lord's reference to His Passion as a "baptism", wrongly adducing this as proof for BoB. Our Lord was baptized already, and Our Lord needed no baptism. His baptism was an extremely unique case, since by His Passion He washed away the sins of the whole world. This passage in no way proves BoB.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** March 17, 2010, 08:40:20 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Protestats said that baptizing babies is foolish because they cannot choose baptism out of free will. They agree with Catholics that adults must voluntarily choose baptism. Protestants have never, to my knowledge, said anything about baptism being effective for adults who unwillingly receive it.

Therefore this cannot be in response to a Protestant error, as Catholics and Prots are in harmony on this point.

Trent wasn't limiting the notion of "voluntary" to simply giving consent or doing it freely, but was referring to a cooperation between grace and free will in the entire process of justification, including cooperating with the Holy Spirit in becoming properly disposed to Baptism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** March 17, 2010, 08:51:47 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

What the hey? Are you actually denying the limbo of the Fathers, Caminus? Abraham and Moses sweated it out in limbo until Christ delivered them... That is a fact.

I don't think he was denying it, but he didn't have a really good explanation for what they were doing there if they had already had the fruits of Our Lord's Passion antecedently applied to them. He said that they were being held "captive" for some reason, but if they're justified and in a state of grace with the infused theological virtues then there's no obstacle for their entry into heaven.