Author Topic: Baptism of Desire.. (Read 10068 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #45 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:46:22 PM »

Oh, the word OR is a mistake. It should be and. I missed it. :smoke-pot:

Stubborn · « **Reply #46 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:49:57 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Oh, the word OR is a mistake. It should be and. I missed it. :smoke-pot:

Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul. How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and exactly who is to be believed?

Gregory I · « **Reply #47 on:** August 20, 2011, 11:06:05 PM »

To ROSCOE:

WHOA, ok, I did more research, and I was wrong. It seems very clear that Gregory XII was the legitimate Pope. AND the least supported and rejected by all his Cardinals.

I am sorry, I suppose I made a mistake. Foot in mouth deal.

I do have ONE question though Roscoe: Was it LICIT for the Cardinals in Rome to elect a Pope WITHOUT the 6 Cardinals who had remained in Avignon?

TO Stubborn:

What I want to know is not so much about the Dogma, I understand that. I want to know WHO, besides Fr. Feeney, has EVER taught that a Person can die JUSTIFIED and NOT go to heaven?

Let's not cloud the issue: Fr. Feeney contended that a person could be Justified by a sincere desire and vow (voto) to receive baptism. But, he maintained it was not enough to be justified, it was also necessary to posses the sacramental Character of Baptism. THerefore, one could NOT go to heaven, even if one were Justified, if one did not posses the sacramental Character of Baptism.

NOW: If the Sacramental Character is needed to FULFILL the unfulfilled state of Justification proposed by Fr. Feeny, that leads to some questions:

1. Where does the church teach that there is anything LESS than a full and complete Justification, whereby one merits heaven on account of the grace of Christ?

2. Where does the Church teach that the Sacramental Character of Baptism is an intrinsic and absolute necessity for Justification?

3. Why would Christ Justify a person whom he has FORESEEN will not receive the sacramental Character of Baptism?

4. GOd does not establish irreconcilable differences in sacramental and DOgmatic theology. Therefore, either BOD justifies, and this justification is salvific in itself, or it does not. But Fr. Feeney held it DOES Justify. But he said it is not enough.

Where does the Church teach it is not enough? Where does ANY theologian teach it is not enough to attain glorification, provided we persevere in his grace before our death?

I have read Fr. Feeneys works, and in them there is a contradiction in his thought.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #48 on:** August 20, 2011, 11:14:10 PM »

It seems to me, that those people who hang on to what Fr. Feeneys taught believe as the novus ordo believes. The Novus Ordo believe the church began with Vatican II, and those who deny BOD and BOB believe the church began with Fr. Feeney, since both seem to disregard what the catechism teaches.

Stubborn · « **Reply #49 on:** August 20, 2011, 11:25:45 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

It seems to me, that those people who hang on to what Fr. Feeneys taught believe as the novus ordo believes. The Novus Ordo believe the church began with Vatican II, and those who deny BOD and BOB believe the church began with Fr. Feeney, since both seem to disregard what the catechism teaches.

The Novus Ordo embraces BOD - it is the core belief of the NO. Without BOD, there Could be no Novus Ordo.

BOD = EENS is dead. Admit it.

roscoe · « **Reply #50 on:** August 20, 2011, 11:31:42 PM »

MO is that the BoD/BoB debate is a waste of time. My historical judgement of the Fr Feeney docuмents is that they are fraudulent. I would probably not have asked to join Fr Feeneys group but had I been in Boston at the time I would have gone to a few meetings and I do enjoy reading some of his work.

There is no Church Authority telling us to beware of Fr Feeney and in fact a phrase in Humanum Generis may be there specifically because of Fr Feeney.

Stubborn · « **Reply #51 on:** August 20, 2011, 11:34:14 PM »

First please answer my questions........... Water being an absolute necessity is solemnly defined. Metaphorical baptism is solemnly condemned. The UOM teach that BOD will save ones soul.
1) How is BOD *not* a metaphorical baptism - and 2) exactly who is to be believed?

Quote from: Gregory I

TO Stubborn:

What I want to know is not so much about the Dogma, I understand that. I want to know WHO, besides Fr. Feeney, has EVER taught that a Person can die JUSTIFIED and NOT go to heaven?

Let's not cloud the issue: Fr. Feeney contended that a person could be Justified by a sincere desire and vow (voto) to receive baptism. But, he maintained it was not enough to be justified, it was also necessary to posses the sacramental Character of Baptism. THerefore, one could NOT go to heaven, even if one were Justified, if one did not posses the sacramental Character of Baptism.

NOW: If the Sacramental Character is needed to FULFILL the unfulfilled state of Justification proposed by Fr. Feeny, that leads to some questions:

It was not something proposed by Fr. Feeney, it was a dogma defined by Trent. It is taught in Scripture. St. John was martyred yet forever he will be remembered as St. John the Baptist, not St. John the Martyr etc.

Quote from: Gregory I

1. Where does the church teach that there is anything LESS than a full and complete Justification, whereby one merits heaven on account of the grace of Christ?

"Unless a man be born again of water.....he cannot enter the Kingdom of God"

Quote from: Gregory I

2. Where does the Church teach that the Sacramental Character of Baptism is an intrinsic and absolute necessity for Justification?

"Unless a man be born again of water.....he cannot enter the Kingdom of God"

Quote from: Gregory I

3. Why would Christ Justify a person whom he has FORESEEN will not receive the sacramental Character of Baptism?

Who says one who is sincere will not receive the sacramental Character of Baptism? That is an invention of man . . . . . . . Whatever happened to the promise of Our Lord?.........For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
Why is His promise rendered meaningless?

Quote from: Gregory I

4. GOd does not establish irreconcilable differences in sacramental and DOgmatic theology. Therefore, either BOD justifies, and this justification is salvific in itself, or it does not. But Fr. Feeney held it DOES Justify. But he said it is not enough.

Where does the Church teach it is not enough? Where does ANY theologian teach it is not enough to attain glorification, provided we persevere in his grace before our death?

I have read Fr. Feeneys works, and in them there is a contradiction in his thought.

My reply in the above paragraph aside, IIRC, Fr. Feeney held that it might justify, not that it does justify. No one on earth can claim with any certainty whatsoever that it actually does justify. Theologians can speculate all they want, but BOD is not in the Deposit of Faith - at least if it is, it has not been discovered yet.

The real truth is that those who advocate BOD take God out of the equation, expect Him to break laws He made specifically for our salvation - and they judge that the unbaptized person is granted salvation.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #52 on:** August 21, 2011, 07:30:13 AM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Exilenomore
Quote from: St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 ####o non baptizato" and of 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".

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

(Translated by John Daly)

St. Alphonsus is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. One should not make caricatures of the salutary doctrine of the Church, pulling definitions out of their proper context.

Other canonized Doctors actually rejected what St. Alphonsus teaches here.

How do we reconcile this?

By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

Stubborn · « **Reply #53 on:** August 21, 2011, 07:33:36 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

Please list the specific errors for us.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #54 on:** August 21, 2011, 07:42:59 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Exilenomore

By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

Please list the specific errors for us.

Why not just read the condemnation?

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** August 21, 2011, 07:51:31 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Exilenomore

By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

Please list the specific errors for us.

Why not just read the condemnation?

Since you brought it up, I thought you would know enough about it to be able to put it itemized in short form for us.

Daegus · « **Reply #56 on:** August 21, 2011, 08:00:22 AM »

Why is no one answering the question of how baptism of desire can save you if water is a necessity of baptism? I'm getting tired of people running around this issue and not even trying to answer the question. I really don't care for Fr. Feeney or geocentrism or what have you right now. What I want is answers.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #57 on:** August 21, 2011, 08:20:01 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: MyrnaM
It seems to me, that those people who hang on to what Fr. Feeneys taught believe as the novus ordo believes. The Novus Ordo believe the church began with Vatican II, and those who deny BOD and BOB believe the church began with Fr. Feeney, since both seem to disregard what the catechism teaches.

The Novus Ordo embraces BOD - it is the core belief of the NO. Without BOD, there Could be no Novus Ordo.

BOD = EENS is dead. Admit it.

I know what the novus ordo does teach and what it does not teach, my point is both, as my quote says, disregard the catechism, in different teachings. Sorry for not making myself a little more clear.

Quote

Why is no one answering the question of how baptism of desire can save you if water is a necessity of baptism? I'm getting tired of people running around this issue and not even trying to answer the question. I really don't care for Fr. Feeney or geocentrism or what have you right now. What I want is answers.

Because Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, therefore there is no need for an outward sign, such as water. What saves you through BOD is grace.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #58 on:** August 21, 2011, 08:26:29 AM »

Quote from: Daegus

Why is no one answering the question of how baptism of desire can save you if water is a necessity of baptism? I'm getting tired of people running around this issue and not even trying to answer the question. I really don't care for Fr. Feeney or geocentrism or what have you right now. What I want is answers.

It is necessary in the sense that someone who refuses water Baptism cannot be saved, but not in the sense that God is chained to His Sacraments so that He needs water to save someone who, for example, is about to die, wants to be baptized, but has no access to water and dies without receiving the Sacrament. We do not know who is saved in this way. We can only know that someone is in Heaven if the Church canonizes him/her.

One who has heard that he needs to be baptized, but does not attempt to receive it due to laxism or presumption, is guilty.

Daegus · « **Reply #59 on:** August 21, 2011, 10:00:06 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Because Baptism of desire is not a sacrament, therefore there is no need for an outward sign, such as water. What saves you through BOD is grace.

But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it? That's the real issue here. That is the problem. Whether or not it's a sacrament isn't really even my main concern. My main concern is: if it is a baptism like the name implies, then should water not be necessary for it? The council of Trent says that water is necessary for baptism. If BoD is not baptism, then, quite frankly, I just don't know what the hell it is.

Quote from: Exilenomore

It is necessary in the sense that someone who refuses water Baptism cannot be saved, but not in the sense that God is chained to His Sacraments so that He needs water to save someone who, for example, is about to die, wants to be baptized, but has no access to water and dies without receiving the Sacrament. We do not know who is saved in this way. We can only know that someone is in Heaven if the Church canonizes him/her.

No one is saying that God is bound by His own sacraments. I am not saying God is bound by His sacraments. Asserting otherwise is a vicious lie against me. What I am really having trouble with is the idea that God would contradict Himself in saying that whoever is not born of water and the Holy Ghost cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I'm having trouble believing God would contradict the teachings of His Church or allow His Church to contradict Him and say that someone can be baptised by desire even after saying that water is necessary for baptism and having the Church define that water is a necessity of baptism.