Author Topic: Baptism of Desire.. (Read 10996 times)

Daegus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:24:10 AM »

Quote from: spouse of Jesus

You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.

The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.

Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, begin omniscient as He is?

So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.

Daegus · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:28:42 AM »

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.

Being a Saint and a Doctor of the Church does not mean that one cannot be wrong. In fact, proofs of Saints and DoCs being wrong is all over history, the most classic being St. Thomas Aquinas's errors on conception.

Anyways.. The Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. Would you not agree that Catechumens are outside the Church? The Church has denied them burial among those inside the Church traditionally. The Church has also taught that water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism of desire does not involve water then how can these people be saved?

I don't really feel that the arguments for baptism of desire are very good ones.

Daegus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:30:30 AM »

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: spouse of Jesus
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.

The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.

Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, being omniscient as He is?

So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.

Fixed.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:42:03 AM »

There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.

If one has access to water Baptism, but refuses to receive it, then one is condemned. If one has, moved by supernatural faith and charity, the sincere intention to receive it, but dies an unforeseen* death before the actual reception, that person receives the fruits of Baptism.

Also, when a Saint and Doctor of the Church says that a certain doctrine is de fide and that the contrary position is at least temerarious, then you can not simply dismiss it.

*Unforeseen by the said person, not by God.

Daegus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2011, 09:01:44 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.

With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.

With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.

Quote

If one has access to water Baptism, but refuses to receive it, then one is condemned. If one has, moved by supernatural faith and charity, the sincere intention to receive it, but dies an unforeseen* death before the actual reception, that person receives the fruits of Baptism.

*Unforeseen by the said person, not by God.

Why does it matter of whether or not the person foresees this death or not? It's obvious that God does and I don't see why God would allow them to die without water baptism if He knew that they truly wanted to be saved. I just don't see why God would allow that to happen in cases where the person truly wants to enter the Church. Further, the fact that baptism of desire is far from being dogma (and the fact that it is quite a pressing issue) is what disinclines me from believing in it. I really don't want to err on the faith in such a way. Especially not with baptism which is quite a solemn issue.

Edit: I seriously don't know why you people feel the need to thumb down my posts. I am trying to understand how BoD can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. I'm not trying to start fights. Instead of trying to help you anonymous detractors thumb me down and offer nothing of substance? Wow.

Quote

Also, when a Saint and Doctor of the Church says that a certain doctrine is de fide and that the contrary position is at least temerarious, then you can not simply dismiss it.

I'm not sure you understand what it is that I'm arguing. Please repeat to me what you think it is I've said thus far and I'll tell you if that's what I'm trying to say.