Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Raoul76 on March 12, 2010, 05:43:25 PM
-
-
What if the mother is martyred while pregnant?
-
Apparently Mike has never heard of the Holy Innocents.
-
Apparently Mike has never heard of the Holy Innocents.
who, oh by the way, died under the old dispensation--i.e. before Baptism was required for salvation
-
Such a response is cliche. The same principles apply since the precept was not yet promulgated.
-
Such a response is cliche. The same principles apply since the precept was not yet promulgated.
There's absolutely nothing "cliche" about it. It's just a simple fact.
People in the old dispensation were saved through the precursors to justification as described by the Council of Trent. But they waited in the Limbo of the Fathers because they could not have justification itself until Christ applied His Passion to them. He did that in a special way for them outside of Baptism. Whereas in the new dispensation Baptism is the only way. And just as in the new dispensation the precursors to justification can be supplied by proxy to infants because they themselves have not yet reached the use of reason, so the intentions of their parents to abide by the Old Testament laws (via circuмcision for the Holy Innocents) supplied for those infants these same dispositions for justification.
-
But they waited in the Limbo of the Fathers because they could not have justification itself until Christ applied His Passion to them.
This is theologically erroneous. That's like saying the Blessed Virgin wasn't truly justified until after the Passion. It's like positing something other than sanctifying grace justified those under the old dispensation.
But to address the original point, it remains true that they were and are considered "martyrs" for Jesus Christ by the Church. As such, it follows that there can be infant martyrs after His Passion as well. It seems strange that I would have to say this.
-
But they waited in the Limbo of the Fathers because they could not have justification itself until Christ applied His Passion to them.
This is theologically erroneous. That's like saying the Blessed Virgin wasn't truly justified until after the Passion. It's like positing something other than sanctifying grace justified those under the old dispensation.
No, the Blessed Virgin Mary was an exception, in the sense that She had the fruits of Our Lord's Passion applied to Her beforehand. Read the Council of Trent's decree on justification, which clearly distinguishes between the subjective dispositions necessary for justification and the "justification itself" which comes AFTERWARDS as a result of the application of Our Lord's Passion by Baptism.
But to address the original point, it remains true that they were and are considered "martyrs" for Jesus Christ by the Church. As such, it follows that there can be infant martyrs after His Passion as well. It seems strange that I would have to say this.
Yes, they were martyrs, but their martyrdom wasn't the cause of their justification, i.e. they were not saved by BoB. They were saved by being in a state of pre-justification per the old dispensation. Even the Holy Innocents were hanging out in the Limbo of the Fathers until Our Lord's Passion was applied to them. Why? Because, DESPITE their martyrdom, they were not yet justified. Otherwise, the Holy Innocents would have gone straight to heaven. But they didn't. Which proves my point.
And this would raise other issues if they were saved by this martyrdom, because then you're saying that BoB works ex opere operato even in those who have not reached the age of reason, i.e. you'd be saying that BoB is in fact a Sacrament, which it is not.
So, no, Caminus, YOUR position is theologically erroneous. To say that sanctifying grace somehow justifies (and can even exist) apart from the free-grace unmerited application of Christ's merits by Baptism contradicts the Council of Trent's decree on justification. You're almost implying that people can earn justification by getting into a state of sanctification--which is PRECISELY why I reject BoB and BoD.
-
Secondly, nothing in Trent talks about baptism of desire failing to take away the full "debt of punishment." He is acting as if Trent goes into detail about baptism of desire when Trent mentions it in passing, if at all.
I went back to read Trent's Decree on Justification and am convinced that Trent does NOT teach BoD at all, that the votum refers to the "voluntary reception" of Baptism referred to a couple paragraphs later. I'm in the process of writing something up on that issue. votum is a form of the word volo which is in turn related to the word voluntas. Trent is treating specifically of the relationship between unmerited grace and cooperation of the will (will=voluntas) against the Protestant errors of the day, thus explicitly referring to the need for a "voluntary reception" of Baptism. It's very obvious to me that Trent did not teach BoD.
-
Victories of the Martyrs by Saint Alphonsus has several accounts of men, women, and children that are venerated as saints in the Latin and Oriental churches that did not receive baptism by water. I'm fairly sure that this book is free from theological and dogmatic error.
-
Victories of the Martyrs by Saint Alphonsus has several accounts of men, women, and children that are venerated as saints in the Latin and Oriental churches that did not receive baptism by water. I'm fairly sure that this book is free from theological and dogmatic error.
There's no proof whatsoever that the saint-martyrs cited didn't actually receive water baptism. These accounts come from the martyrologies, and each one indicates that the person was a catechumen when they committed whatever acts eventually led to their martyrdom, but does not rule out water baptism. Now, there are references in the Church Fathers and other early Church docuмents using the word catechumen in reference to post-baptismal neophytes who had not yet been fully instructed in the faith--as would be the case of those who had received emergency water baptism due to impending martyrdom. So someone who had not completed his formal course of instruction, even if water baptized in an emergency, would still be called a "catechumen". In fact, we do have early Church legislation ordering catechumens to be baptized in danger of death but then mandating that their instruction continue afterwards if death does not come about.
-
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 Blessed Virgin Mary was an exception, in the sense that She had the fruits of Our Lord's Passion applied to Her beforehand. Read the Council of Trent's decree on justification, which clearly distinguishes between the subjective dispositions necessary for justification and the "justification itself" which comes AFTERWARDS as a result of the application of Our Lord's Passion by Baptism.
Anyone who was justified prior to the Passion had It's fruits applied antecedently. Otherwise, you'd have to posit something other than grace as a means to justify a soul. And making reference to the dispositions of to justification only beg the question, for if they were not justified, then they were not in a state of grace. If they were not in a state of grace, they remained enemies of God.
But to address the original point, it remains true that they were and are considered "martyrs" for Jesus Christ by the Church. As such, it follows that there can be infant martyrs after His Passion as well. It seems strange that I would have to say this.
Yes, they were martyrs, but their martyrdom wasn't the cause of their justification, i.e. they were not saved by BoB. They were saved by being in a state of pre-justification per the old dispensation. Even the Holy Innocents were hanging out in the Limbo of the Fathers until Our Lord's Passion was applied to them. Why? Because, DESPITE their martyrdom, they were not yet justified. Otherwise, the Holy Innocents would have gone straight to heaven. But they didn't. Which proves my point.
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. In fact, theologians, following St. Thomas, exlain that baptism of blood is a more perfect form of baptism even than that of water because it so closely imitates the "baptism" of the Passion.
And this would raise other issues if they were saved by this martyrdom, because then you're saying that BoB works ex opere operato even in those who have not reached the age of reason, i.e. you'd be saying that BoB is in fact a Sacrament, which it is not.
It is a quasi-sacrament.
So, no, Caminus, YOUR position is theologically erroneous. To say that sanctifying grace somehow justifies (and can even exist) apart from the free-grace unmerited application of Christ's merits by Baptism contradicts the Council of Trent's decree on justification. You're almost implying that people can earn justification by getting into a state of sanctification--which is PRECISELY why I reject BoB and BoD.
On the contrary, your position is erroneous and the more obstinately you adhere to your opinions, the greater danger you are of sinning. A man can no more "earn" grace in the improper sense you imply in martyrdom than in baptism. Either a man walks up to the font of baptism to "die with Christ" or a man walks up to the gallows to do the same. The later is obviously more glorious, thus the reason St. Thomas gives for its sanctifying effects.
-
Victories of the Martyrs by Saint Alphonsus has several accounts of men, women, and children that are venerated as saints in the Latin and Oriental churches that did not receive baptism by water. I'm fairly sure that this book is free from theological and dogmatic error.
There's no proof whatsoever that the saint-martyrs cited didn't actually receive water baptism. These accounts come from the martyrologies, and each one indicates that the person was a catechumen when they committed whatever acts eventually led to their martyrdom, but does not rule out water baptism. Now, there are references in the Church Fathers and other early Church docuмents using the word catechumen in reference to post-baptismal neophytes who had not yet been fully instructed in the faith--as would be the case of those who had received emergency water baptism due to impending martyrdom. So someone who had not completed his formal course of instruction, even if water baptized in an emergency, would still be called a "catechumen". In fact, we do have early Church legislation ordering catechumens to be baptized in danger of death but then mandating that their instruction continue afterwards if death does not come about.
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.
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.
-
Anyone who was justified prior to the Passion had It's fruits applied antecedently. Otherwise, you'd have to posit something other than grace as a means to justify a soul.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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".
-
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.
-
no the martyrologies are not infallible either.
Nor, obviously, are you.
-
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.
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.
-
no the martyrologies are not infallible either.
Nor, obviously, are you.
:sign-surrender: concedo
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Vladimir said:
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 --
"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 --
"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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Ladislaus said:
To say that sanctifying grace somehow justifies (and can even exist) apart from the free-grace unmerited application of Christ's merits by Baptism contradicts the Council of Trent's decree on justification. You're almost implying that people can earn justification by getting into a state of sanctification--which is PRECISELY why I reject BoB and BoD.
Those who have studied BoD and BoB in depth do not say that sanctifying grace exists independently of the sacrament of baptism. They believe the desire for the sacrament of baptism -- or the desire to do everything that God wills, for those who believe in an extremely loose version of baptism of desire -- is what applies Christ's merits to them ( the unbaptized ) and gives them sanctifying grace, whereby they have charity, and thus justification and the remission of sins.
In my opinion, sanctifying grace is only given to catechumens, or those who explicitly desire to join the Church, and then only at the moment of their deaths if they happen to die before baptism. Otherwise baptism would be an empty ritual.
I would gladly be right there with you, Ladislaus, in being against baptism of desire, if only to slam the door shut on this expanding, sloppy concept of EENS that is one of our modern plagues. The problem is that this means those invalidly baptized, or baptized by priests without the proper intention, cannot be saved, which doesn't sit well with me.
Granted, that may be sentimental. What is more to the point is that denying baptism of desire would also deny baptism of blood which goes back to Tertullian and has its roots in the teachings of the Fathers. Many of the Fathers who were extremely strict on baptism's necessity allowed for baptism of blood. The idea of a catechumen fervently professing Christ who is killed and goes to hell is injurious to the faith, in my opinion. Would God really want catechumens to stay silent and not preach Christ when challenged, in case they might be killed? You can say "Well, maybe this catechumen would one day have become a heretic so God allowed him to be killed out of mercy." Okay -- but how would it look to other Catholics to see a priest condemning someone to hell who died for the name of Christ while a catechumen in the Catholic Church?
Denying baptism of blood creates all kinds of impious scenarios of this sort, and of course God would have accounted for all these contingencies beforehand. He did this, in my opinion, by truly giving Himself the ability to save someone without water baptism.
And if there is baptism of blood, that means water baptism is not always necessary. So those who say that baptism of desire began with Augustine, has no link to the Apostles and is a tradition of men are wrong. It began with Tertullian in the form of baptism of blood, and has just as much of a link to the Apostles as the Immaculate Conception, which was never expressly stated in Scripture. On the contrary, lines like "All men have sinned" were used against the Immaculate Conception for a long time.
I personally am absolutely convicted that there is a baptism of desire, and if I were Pope I'd make it dogma straightaway that anyone who expresses a specific will to join the Catholic Church may, not will, be saved despite not attaining water baptism. I would then forbid anyone to speculate beyond that under pain of automatic excommunication. The 1917 Code of Canon Law that contains harmful laws would be revoked, and catechumens who die before baptism would go back to being buried in unconsecrated ground, as they were not made actual members of the visible Church.
Also, it would be made clear, against St. Thomas, that baptism of desire and blood remit all sins. I think this would solve most of the confusion, as BoD has been very poorly explained in the past. St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were flat-out wrong that baptism of desire would only partially remit sins. It has all the effects of baptism without being a sacrament. I can't believe people haven't noticed this obvious error before.
-
Ladislaus said:
Trent is treating specifically of the relationship between unmerited grace and cooperation of the will (will=voluntas) against the Protestant errors of the day, thus explicitly referring to the need for a 'voluntary reception' of Baptism. It's very obvious to me that Trent did not teach BoD.
Protestants 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. What they are not in harmony about is baptism of babies, but that is not treated of here in Session 6 on Justification, which is entirely about adults.
You may nevertheless be right, Ladislaus -- or you may not be -- that Trent doesn't explicitly teach baptism of desire, due to the ambiguity of that pesky "aut." One piece of evidence in your favor is that if Trent really did teach baptism of desire, it would be considered de fide across the board. Yet only St. Alphonsus said it was. I don't like to say that a Council of the Catholic Church is ambiguous, but actually, as St. Alphonsus shows in his book on Trent, there are times when Church leaders are deliberately ambiguous to leave certain questions open. I would say that is the case with baptism of desire. Otherwise, why didn't the Trent Fathers teach it in clear and undeniable terms like they did with perfect contrition sufficing if the sacrament of penance was not available?
Here's the catch: Even if it Trent doesn't teach baptism of desire, it doesn't rule it out either. If the Feeneyites are right, it simply describes the ordinary way by which one is justified, while leaving the extraordinary exceptions unspoken. Saying "As it is written, unless you are born again of water and the Holy Ghost" is not proof of your position either. That has been quoted numerous times by people who see no contradiction between this quote and baptism of desire. That is because someone who is baptized by water is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, and someone who receives the effects of baptism by baptism of desire is also... Born again of water and the Holy Ghost!
Some will take this membership of the Church in voto and pull it like taffy to include someone in a ѕуηαgσgυє who has never desired baptism, but maybe is slightly dissatisfied with being a Jew, or with a pagan who feels some ennui towards his tribe's cannibalism and looks up to the stars in search of a higher power. Such a one would be saved by the lights of the Suprema Haec Sacra where a vague desire and yearning is enough to make you a member of the Church in desire. This strikes me as a heresy that pretends to be able to save those in false religions through the back door, through some kind of devious, roundabout, casuistic detour. No one can be saved in a false religion and must separate themselves absolutely from it, unless you want to say, along with Americanists like Abp. Lefebvre, that someone can be practicing in a sect yet be joined to the Catholic Church implicitly at the same time -- an utterly repellent notion to me. But that's for the Monsignor Fenton thread.
-
Ladislaus said:
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)."
Agreed. 1 out of 3 ain't bad!
It may be harsh, but I do not think there can be baptism of blood for infants, and from what I can tell it's borderline heretical. If people say that there can be baptism of blood for babies, we are in danger of sentimentalizing abortion itself, of reducing its pure evil.
No one can be killed "for Christ" the way that the Holy Innocents were. There will never again be another historical situation where babies are slaughtered in case one of them might be the Savior. Even if the Antichrist goes around slaughtering babies like Herod they will be killed for Satan, not for Christ. And if we're going to say that babies who are being killed for Satan are ransomed by Christ, then you are saying that aborted fetuses can be saved. This in turn diminishes the evil of abortion!
No one is taking me up on my stories about witches, probably because you are all heretics who don't believe in witches ( I'm joking, but the Malleus Maleficarum does say that it's heresy not to believe in witches ). Witches preyed on babies. I have read that one of the prime professions for witches was midwifery. There was one famous case of a woman who perforated the skulls of infants with a needle as soon as they were born -- 40 of them -- as sacrifices to Satan. Then I guess she would say they died naturally. The connection to abortion here is undeniable. Satan has a vested interest in killing babies -- if they could be saved by baptism of blood, all of his "work" would be for naught.
From the general tenor of the medieval mindset as I understand it, it was a commonly accepted fact that unbaptized babies had no chance to make it, even if they were killed. And during the Renaissance, St. Pius V personally had the concept of "vicarious baptism of desire," that a mother could desire baptism for her baby, removed from one of Cardinal Cajetan's books.
P.S. Naturally, I have drawn a connection between my story of midwife-witches and "Allocution to Midwives," which I see as a sort of triumphal blast of the devil having attained to what the world believed was the See of Peter, but since I am already hoarding space in this thread, I'll leave it for later.
-
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.
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.
-
Just got a note from CM, so let me smuggle it in:
CM said:
"I just wanted to point out to Mike that Tertullian is one of those men who held BoB to be a SECOND baptism after that if water.
Tertullian, AD 203 said:
We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, "I have to be baptized with a baptism," just as John has written; that he might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood.
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.
-
Caminus said:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
http://www.saintsworks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20Complete%20Works%20-%209%20-%20Victories%20of%20the%20Martyrs.pdf
Look on page 291.
-
-
No one can be killed "for Christ" the way that the Holy Innocents were. There will never again be another historical situation where babies are slaughtered in case one of them might be the Savior. Even if the Antichrist goes around slaughtering babies like Herod they will be killed for Satan, not for Christ.
By this strange rationale, no one at all could be a martyr. No one dies for the faith because the executioner "thinks they are the Savior." If the death of anyone, young or old, is brought about (material cause) by the hatred of the Faith, they die a martyr and receive immediately the Beatific Vision after death given that they have received the most perfect form of baptism, laying down their life for the love of Jesus Christ. That is the entire Gospel in summary.
You know, I think all these silly opinions denying BoD/BoB stem ultimately from a misunderstanding of the sacraments themselves. Some people seem to think that the sacraments are made for God, not man. The necessity of the sacraments themselves is perversely turned towards God Himself as if He is constrained by His own law.
-
So there appears to be a lot of theological churn on this subject.
But, lest we forget the original subject of this thread, if we accept the conclusion forwarded in your citation, that circuмcision remits sin and confers grace, then the Holy Innocents would have been justified by circuмcision and are therefore not examples of BoB. Game-Set-Match. You chased me down this rabbit trail, having forgotten the original disagreement, to end up actually backing up my original position. Initially, when I argued that the Holy Innocents were not an example of BoB because they were justified according to the mechanisms of the old dispensation, you denounced this as a false "cliche" argument. Now you have proven my original point. Much obliged. :good-shot:
And, if you posit that those in the Limbo of the Fathers had the theological virtues but could not enter heaven, then you're actually backing the Father Feeney position.
Now, back to the new argument, if circuмcision conferred grace and was an OT baptism-equivalent, then what happened to the poor baby girls? In other words, the circuмcision conferring grace thing does not make sense to me at all. I do not believe that circuмcision worked ex opere operato at all, but was a foreshadowing and type of Baptism, and the ex opere operantis attitudes of those complying with the law fostered the dispositions necessary to eventually be justified and put them into a pre-justification state, a state awaiting justification itself in Limbo.
-
It began with Tertullian in the form of baptism of blood, and has just as much of a link to the Apostles as the Immaculate Conception, which was never expressly stated in Scripture. On the contrary, lines like "All men have sinned" were used against the Immaculate Conception for a long time.
I personally am absolutely convicted that there is a baptism of desire, and if I were Pope I'd make it dogma straightaway that anyone who expresses a specific will to join the Catholic Church may, not will, be saved despite not attaining water baptism. I would then forbid anyone to speculate beyond that under pain of automatic excommunication.
Thank God, then, that you're not the Pope :laugh2:.
You cannot make dogma something that has not been revealed. Something can be revealed in two ways: 1) directly revealed by Christ to the Apostles or 2) implicitly contained in other revealed dogmas.
So the Immaculate Conception was an example of the latter by the way (at least in terms of the Church's ability to discern it as having been revealed).
Now here's where the Church Fathers fit in. If we see a unanimous consensus among the Church Fathers, it points to the fact that it was revealed to the Apostles. If all the Fathers scattered across the world essentially believed the same thing, you could reasonably trace it back to their common roots, i.e. to Christ and the Apostles. Remember that communication was not instantaneous back then. Other than that, the Church Fathers were not inspired or infallible. So the fact that about a half dozen Fathers held BoB as supplying for Baptism falls short of demonstrating that this was revealed. And the fact that there are only about half a dozen almost suggests the opposite, that it was NOT revealed.
So that leaves us with deriving BoB implicitly from some other revealed dogma. I have seen nothing to demonstrate this either.
So I don't think that Church will ever define BoB or BoD as dogma. At most She'll leave it as an opinion that may be held, or She could condemn it as error or heresy if in fact She comes to the awareness that it contradicts other dogma regarding the necessity of Baptism. Or else, if She determines that speculation regarding BoB has in fact undermined EENS, she could simply declare it unlawful to speculate beyond the fact that Baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
I would gladly be right there with you, Ladislaus, in being against baptism of desire, if only to slam the door shut on this expanding, sloppy concept of EENS that is one of our modern plagues. The problem is that this means those invalidly baptized, or baptized by priests without the proper intention, cannot be saved, which doesn't sit well with me.
Granted, that may be sentimental. What is more to the point is that denying baptism of desire would also deny baptism of blood which goes back to Tertullian and has its roots in the teachings of the Fathers. Many of the Fathers who were extremely strict on baptism's necessity allowed for baptism of blood. The idea of a catechumen fervently professing Christ who is killed and goes to hell is injurious to the faith, in my opinion. Would God really want catechumens to stay silent and not preach Christ when challenged, in case they might be killed? You can say "Well, maybe this catechumen would one day have become a heretic so God allowed him to be killed out of mercy." Okay -- but how would it look to other Catholics to see a priest condemning someone to hell who died for the name of Christ while a catechumen in the Catholic Church?
Denying baptism of blood creates all kinds of impious scenarios of this sort, and of course God would have accounted for all these contingencies beforehand. He did this, in my opinion, by truly giving Himself the ability to save someone without water baptism.
Raoul, you really need to stay away from this can-o-worms.
1) I don't think that explicit BoD necessarily undermines EENS, so that's not my reason for opposing it. I don't have that as my driving "ulterior motive".
2) If a person were not validly baptized, then God allowed that to happen. I am a proponent of the position that intention means intending to do what the Church does. That's why heretics can validly baptized. Even if a Mason were in his mind thinking "I do not intend to baptize", he in fact DID intend to baptize if he said the words prescribed by the Church. But that's a separate issue. God manages all our affairs in His Providence. He could just as easily have willed that such a person be born among the animists and not receive Baptism at all. God is NOT CONSTRAINED BY IMPOSSIBILITY. This idea that BoD/BoB supply in cases of impossibility is borderline blasphemous, for "With God all things are possible." IMPOSSIBILITY does not make a compelling argument. Nor does God have to "give Himself the ability to save souls" by instituting BoB and BoD. It would be NOTHING to God to arrange matters in such a way that all His elect received water Baptism. In fact, the dozens of examples of saints raising people back to life in order to confer water Baptism upon them was to show that there's nothing God cannot do to grant Baptism to one of His elect.
2) We do not know why God would refuse Baptism to a catechumen being martyred. Perhaps that person would have sinned more in having some day rejected and turned his back on the graces and promises of Baptism and thus merited a greater eternal punishment. We absolutely cannot know this. Why does God allows babies to be aborted without Baptism when they have committed no actual sins? Why does God allow even children to sometimes die cruel deaths? We cannot know the mysteries of God's Providence. I have known people who left the Church due to some tragedy that they deemed incompatible with their belief in a good God. So let's not open this can of worms.
3) Who cares what people think of a priest? Those same people have also condemned the Church for refusing Christian burial to ѕυιcιdєs and for saying that unbaptized babies are in hell.
Remember that in hell the actual sufferings are based on the good vs. the bad that a person has done. Someone who dies a catechumen while shedding his blood for Christ may render his eternal fate much less severe, and perhaps--IMO--even suffer no torments at all, having received a certain remission of actual punishment due to sin from this martyrdom. As opposed to perhaps what would have happened had this person been baptized and renounced his baptism, for his sin then would have been greater.
So only God knows why people are born into their circuмstances, why their lives progress the way they do, and why some receive certain graces that others do not.
St. Robert Bellarmine also argued--regretfully--in favor of BoD based on this "it would seem too harsh" mentality.
-
But, lest we forget the original subject of this thread, if we accept the conclusion forwarded in your citation, that circuмcision remits sin and confers grace, then the Holy Innocents would have been justified by circuмcision and are therefore not examples of BoB. Game-Set-Match.
That's true, but if you deny the premise in the first place, viz. that infants cannot be martyrs, then the attainment of justification in the old rites of the law is a moot point. But the citation directly contradicts your previous assertions anyway so I guess there is some good that can come out of this.
You chased me down this rabbit trail, having forgotten the original disagreement, to end up actually backing up my original position. Initially, when I argued that the Holy Innocents were not an example of BoB because they were justified according to the mechanisms of the old dispensation, you denounced this as a false "cliche" argument.
You did not say that, rather you stated that it was a moot point as evidence for baptism of blood because they were under the old law. You even went on to say astoundingly that no one was really justified at all under the old covenant. Consequently, you ignored my requests to take such an assertion to its logical conclusions because you knew that such an opinion has absolutely no foundation in theology or doctrine.
And, if you posit that those in the Limbo of the Fathers had the theological virtues but could not enter heaven, then you're actually backing the Father Feeney position.
That's simply the position of catholic doctrine. St. Thomas states that the reason why they were barred from heaven while yet being in a state of grace had to do with a defect of human nature or the general punishment of original sin. Thus they were forgiven, but a certain kind of punishment still remained according to human nature until the work of Redemption was accomplished.
There is no way you can deny such a proposition without implying that they were all in a state of mortal sin, the explicit testimony of Scripture notwithstanding. Oddly, you rely upon the protestant notion of "extrinsic" justification in order to advance your opinion regarding the saints of the old covenant.
Now, back to the new argument, if circuмcision conferred grace and was an OT baptism-equivalent, then what happened to the poor baby girls? In other words, the circuмcision conferring grace thing does not make sense to me at all. I do not believe that circuмcision worked ex opere operato at all, but was a foreshadowing and type of Baptism, and the ex opere operantis attitudes of those complying with the law fostered the dispositions necessary to eventually be justified and put them into a pre-justification state, a state awaiting justification itself in Limbo.
The rites of the old law did not work ex opere operato, yet they were a means to attain justification as a sign of faith. The women were justified as well through other rites I believe, but I'd have to check on that. To say that they were in a "pre-justification" state is verbally equivalent to stating they were still in a state of mortal sin. Are you seriously attempting to maintain this opinion?
-
I'll stay open with regard to the justification mechanism in the Old Testament. Certain aspects of it are definitely puzzing, which is why I think some theologians were speculating that SOMEthing was missing from it that, say, Baptism provides (e.g. remission of sins or something).
I am a bit puzzled by the Limbo of the Fathers if in fact those in there had sanctifying grace.
So I'll just leave it at that. I don't think we're going to solve this problem.
Really, my original argument was that we cannot draw conclusions about BoB/BoD from the OT because the justification mechanism was different then than since Our Lord's Passion.
I admit that it would be hard to swallow that someone like St. Joseph was not in a state of sanctifying grace. But there was something lacking there, since St. Joseph had to wait with everyone else. So, I'm actually being forced to reconsider my earlier dismissal of Father Feeney's justification/salvation distinction, and understanding why those OT just were in Limbo might be the key.
-
Had Our Blessed Mother died before Our Lord's Passion, would She have had to wait in Limbo? I know it's hypothetical, since God knew that She wouldn't, but addressing the question might help come to terms with this issue.
-
Here are some other additional questions about BoB.
Let's say that I'm a Catholic in a state of unrepented mortal sin. I'm walking down the street and some Muslim, for instance, shoots me in the back of the head for being Catholic. But I have no idea what hit me. Am I saved?
Let's say I'm that Catholic and I have a certain attrition (but not contrition) for my sin and an implicit intention to get to Confession at some point. Am I saved then if I'm shot in the head as per above?
Or is it the presumed perfect charity involved in a more typical martyrdom that supplies the remission of sins? St. Augustine specifically called out the "suffering" aspect of BoB as the element which justifies. But what if my martyrdom--as in the example above--entails no suffering and no will to lay down my life for Christ?
So then how can that work for those who have not yet reached the age of reason?
-
So, I wonder then, is it a condemned proposition that even today there can be people who are in a state of grace yet not admitted to the beatific vision?
-
http://www.saintsworks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20Complete%20Works%20-%209%20-%20Victories%20of%20the%20Martyrs.pdf
Look on page 291.
I didn't forget about you, Vladimir. I have a slower internet connection and it took a while to download this book.
Well, the only thing we have is a note from the "ED" (which I'm assuming is the editor of the English translation) to the effect that St. Genesius did not receive Baptism because the Sacrament was confected in a play (therefore lacking the requisite intention). That's his opinion only. That doesn't come even from St. Alphonsus. I believe that the Sacrament he received was valid because the one who conferred it was intending to DO what the Church DOES. That's why atheists can validly baptized. They could in their minds think, "This is useless and doesn't do anything, and this ritual accomplishes nothing.", but they would still validly confect the Sacrament because they intend to DO what the Church DOES. St. Genesius received the grace of being properly disposed BEFORE the Baptism was conferred upon him. Nor does the narrative rule out that Genesius would have been baptized sometime after he was denounced but before he was martyred.
-
Here are some other additional questions about BoB.
Let's say that I'm a Catholic in a state of unrepented mortal sin. I'm walking down the street and some Muslim, for instance, shoots me in the back of the head for being Catholic. But I have no idea what hit me. Am I saved?
Let's say I'm that Catholic and I have a certain attrition (but not contrition) for my sin and an implicit intention to get to Confession at some point. Am I saved then if I'm shot in the head as per above?
Or is it the presumed perfect charity involved in a more typical martyrdom that supplies the remission of sins? St. Augustine specifically called out the "suffering" aspect of BoB as the element which justifies. But what if my martyrdom--as in the example above--entails no suffering and no will to lay down my life for Christ?
So then how can that work for those who have not yet reached the age of reason?
1. I would say no.
2. Not sure.
3. I would recommend studying II-II, Q. 124, A. 1-5, in order to understand the basic principles involved.
I do know that in most cases, the parity between adults and infants fails because of differing states. It seems that the will of the infant is inchoate but open to receiving such grace passively and without any obstacle whereas in cases of adults, the will must consent because the power is fully developed.
-
Here are some other additional questions about BoB.
Let's say that I'm a Catholic in a state of unrepented mortal sin. I'm walking down the street and some Muslim, for instance, shoots me in the back of the head for being Catholic. But I have no idea what hit me. Am I saved?
Let's say I'm that Catholic and I have a certain attrition (but not contrition) for my sin and an implicit intention to get to Confession at some point. Am I saved then if I'm shot in the head as per above?
Or is it the presumed perfect charity involved in a more typical martyrdom that supplies the remission of sins? St. Augustine specifically called out the "suffering" aspect of BoB as the element which justifies. But what if my martyrdom--as in the example above--entails no suffering and no will to lay down my life for Christ?
So then how can that work for those who have not yet reached the age of reason?
1. In accordance with Catholic teaching, that soul would be damned I think.
2. I still don't think so. To many people don't realize what a great (infinite) offense mortal sin is to God. You obviously don't have a mind if after you commit a mortal sin, you are walking casually around town with the attitude "I'll get to Confession at some point". People like this aren't penitents but mockers of God. As soon as you commit a mortal sin, you should pray to God to spare your life and grant you the grace to have a perfect or imperfect contrition and allow you to live until your next Confession. Instead, some people will try to seek comfort, like David, in creatures instead, but will find none. In the end, they make lukewarm confessions and fall again.
Ladislaus,
You have a valid point that it is the comment of the editor, and not Saint Alphonsus writing that. However, I think that the Saint mentions others being "baptized in their blood". However, I'll leave it to you to research that if you want to dig deeper, since you already downloaded the book. Its a great read!