Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on October 09, 2012, 02:34:49 PM
-
http://www.catholicresponse.org/articles/bod_mhfm.htm
Baptism of Desire
Is it a Catholic Teaching?
By Scott Windsor
http://www.catholicresponse.org
The purpose of this article is to show the true Catholic teaching on this controversial matter between Catholics. I will primarily focus by means of refutation of a newsletter from A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, (newsletter #2). This article, by Bro. Dimond, can be found on their website at: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Short_Refutation_of_the_Theory_of_Baptism_of_Desire.html
My comments/refutations will be in black and Verdana font, Bro. Dimond’s original statements will be in maroon and Arial font.
A VOICE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS
newsletter#2
A Short Refutation of the Theory of Baptism of Desire
- by Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. -
In many ways the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is the most important dogma in the Catholic Church. Connected with this is the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. But today both of these truths are almost universally denied by those calling themselves Catholic. They assert that the unbaptized can be united to the Church, justified (attain the state of grace) and saved by what is called baptism of desire. A tiny minority of those who believe in baptism of desire (less than 1%) limit it to those who actually desire baptism and believe in the Catholic religion (e.g., unbaptized catechumens). The vast majority of them (more than 99%) extend the possibility of salvation by baptism of desire to pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. and people of no religion, who do not actually desire baptism or believe in the Catholic Faith. This majority group also somehow extends the "saving capability" of baptism of desire to Protestants, even though Protestants have already been baptized.
The problem with this logic lies with the fact that it doesn’t matter what even 99% of Catholics may believe, what does matter is what the Church actually teaches on a given topic. The introduction of this unsubstantiated “fact” seems nothing more than hyperbole to draw out an emotional response, primarily from “Traditional Catholics.”
In this newsletter we will show that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost (i.e., actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism). The discussion will focus mainly on baptism of desire as it is believed by the tiny minority (for those who actually desire baptism and believe in the Catholic religion), because the majority’s definition of baptism of desire (that baptism of desire saves those who don’t believe in the Catholic Faith or actually desire baptism) is directly contrary to many defined dogmas, was never held by any saint, and is a denial of the Athanasian Creed which defined that whoever wishes to be saved must believe in Jesus Christ, the Most Holy Trinity and the Catholic Faith.
But with all due respect, Bro. Dimond fails to acknowledge that what 99% of Catholics may believe is irrelevant if it disagrees with Catholic teaching. What he has just represented is NOT the Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire, rather it is the view of this (undocuмented) 99% of Catholics. We will get to what the real teaching is here in just a bit, for he has put “Baptism of Desire – On the Witness Stand” and there he has provided the opportunity, not only to defend the real teaching, but he has presented it!
Baptism of Desire – On the Witness Stand
1) Are the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 (" Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.") to be taken as they are written, or not as they are written?
All defenders of the theory of baptism of desire must admit that they believe that John 3:5 is not to be taken literally. They agree that baptism of desire cannot be true if John 3:5 is understood as it is written. So the question is: Does the Catholic Church understand John 3:5 as it is written or not?
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION OR A DESIRE FOR IT, AS IT IS WRITTEN: UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5)."
The reader can see very clearly that the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), thereby excluding any possibility of baptism of desire. Ironically, the Council defines this in Sess. 6, Chap. 4, the very passage which baptism of desire proponents quote all the time to favor their position. In fact, this passage is brought up by baptism of desire proponents as their single strongest – and perhaps only – argument from the Papal Magisterium. It is their "trump card". Why do they think this?
Let’s see, why do we think this? Well, let’s start out by reminding Bro. Dimond that the Council of Trent is an infallible and dogmatic council. What is declared and/or defined by this council cannot be dismissed by any true and faithful Catholic.
The baptism of desire people believe that the use of the word "or" (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. But a careful look at the passage proves this to be false. The passage says that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (water baptism) or the desire for it; in other words, both are necessary. Suppose I said, "This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one." Does this mean that the shower takes place by the desire to take a shower? Absolutely not. It means that both are necessary.
Bro. Dimond contradicts himself and levies a contradiction on the Council of Trent as well. First he states “that justification can take place,” then he says “that justification cannot take place.” Well, you cannot have an infallible council making both statements! Either it cannot happen, or it can – this is simple logic. The fact that the Latin word “aut” is used and means “or” – this is quite simply proof that it can happen. We must also keep in mind, the Church never declares a given individual is not justified and/or is condemned to hell. The Church does not play the role of God here – that is His job. It’s not Bro. Dimond’s, nor is it the job of the Benedictines at Most Holy Family Monastery. What is the job of the Church and the faithful is to teach that Baptism is a command of our Lord and no one can willfully refuse to be baptized and expect to be justified and/or saved.
Back to the word “or” here, in this context – “or” does not mean “and” so no matter how much one desires to force the meaning of “and” on this passage, we cannot, without rewriting the passage. As for the shower analogy, Bro. Dimond left out the key concept – it is not “baptism” that will take place in Baptism of Desire, rather it is justification that takes place. Therefore, in the shower analogy, Bro. Dimond missed a point and to make it a valid comparison we would have to add something like, “The mark of this shower cannot take place without the water or the desire for the shower.” In other words, the "mark" of the shower "may" take place whether one actually gets in the shower "or" at least desires to do so. In keeping with the Catholic teaching on "desire" - if one had the opportunity to get in the shower and willfully refused, then the "mark" would not be attained for if one's "desire" is pure, they would not pass up such an opportunity.
Disjunctive use of the word “or:” If you clean your room, you may watch television or go to the movies. You can do either of these things, but not both. In the context of the subject of this article, “Justification of the impious… …cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.” Either works, but not both.
Conjunctive use of the word “or:” If you do not clean your room, you may not watch television or go to the movies. You cannot do either of these things. In the context of Trent, we’d have to reword to make it conjunctive. It would have to be worded something like, “Justification of the impious… …cannot take place without either the laver of regeneration or the desire of it.” Without both, neither works – but I reiterate, Trent did not word it this way!
In fact, the Latin word aut ("or") is used in the same way in other passages in the Council of Trent. In the introduction to the decree on Justification, the Council strictly forbids anyone to "believe, preach or teach" (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in the decree on Justification.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Introduction: "... strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree."
Does "or" (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the Council’s decree on justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously "or"(aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above "or" means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire.
No, Bro. Dimond is missing the syntax of this sentence, the two instances do not use the word “or” in the same way. In the statement of “cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” this is a disjunctive statement. This next statement, “believe, preach or teach,” the context tells us this use of “or” is a conjunctive statement, not a disjunctive one. So it is grammatically incorrect to say the use of “or” in these two passages is the same.
Another example of the use of aut to mean "and" (or "both") in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: "Therefore holy mother Church... has approved this custom of communicating under either species, and has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church."
Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another clear example of how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning "and" or "both".
Yes, again the context of this passage relegates the meaning of “and” or “both” to this use of “or.” Ironically, it must be pointed out that you have used “or” to mean “either/or” here in your own explanation!
And these examples blow away the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire.
Well, no, due to the lack of proper syntactical examination, the conclusion reached here is faulty.
But why does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary for justification? In the past we did not answer this question as well as we could have, because we thought that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 was distinguishing between adults and infants. But further study of the passage reveals that in this chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the iustificationis impii - the justification of the impious (see quote above). The "impious" cannot refer to infants - who are incapable of committing actual sins (Trent, Sess. V, Denz. 791). Therefore, in this chapter Trent is dealing exclusively with those above the age of reason who have committed actual sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for justification. That is why the chapter defines that justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180:
"INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…"
So, far from being in favor of baptism of desire, this chapter of the Council of Trent actually goes against it. It defines that justification of the impious cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it.
The Council of Trent is anything but ambiguous – thus this use of “or” when contrasting two objects (the actual laver “or” the desire of it) is doing just that, “contrasting” the two objects. If the intended meaning was “and” then “and” would have been used, or other words would have been included to make the "or" a "conjunctive or."
We know this interpretation of this passage is correct, because if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptumest)! But this passage is infallible and there is no contradiction contained therein. So let every baptism of desire supporter cease preaching that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 teaches that justification "can" be effected by water or desire, which is certainly not what the Council says. Let them cease preaching that John 3:5 is not to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN.
The problem with the insistence on this thesis is that we do not take any one verse out of the context of the rest of Scripture. If Bro. Dimond’s argument were valid here, then one could go just a bit further in the same chapter and find that only “believing” is necessary:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In fact, if we look at the context of verse 5, the meaning of “born of water” can actually mean our physical birth. Let us look at the context:
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Recognizing the two part comparison in v.5 which is repeated in v.6 and then confirmed in v.7 – we see that the statement we must be “born of water and of the Spirit” is indicative of our physical birth and our spiritual birth. By our mother, we receive physical birth (which is literally a birth by water); through the Sacrament of Baptism we are “born again… of the Spirit.” To insist that being “born of water” is “water baptism” ignores the context of John 3.
Let them cease quoting the horrible mistranslation of this passage as it is found in Denzinger (which many of them continue obstinately to do after it has been pointed out to them).
Bro. Dimond has not established that “Denzinger” is a “horrible mistranslation.” In fact, this is the first mention that it is such. What is mistranslated? The word “or?” This cannot be, for even Bro. Dimond has acknowledged the use of this word and defended it, albeit through the use of faulty syntax, he still defends the fact that “or” is used.
And furthermore, let not these people think that they justify themselves before the all-knowing God by ignoring the above facts and continuing to obstinately assert that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 definitely teaches baptism of desire.
Here we see a false dilemma being presented. It is not the argument of those who support Baptism of Desire that one may “ignore” the command to be baptized.
They cannot be justified asserting this even by quoting famous Church theologians, who were mistaken in good faith; for God did not give the charism of infallibility to theologians, however great, but to Peter and his successors alone (Lk. 22:31-32).
It is not stated to whom Bro. Dimond is referring here, but since it is well known by anyone who has debated this topic previously, one can assume he is referring to St. Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologica, which makes several references to Baptism of Desire. The problem we would have here though is that the Summa Theologica has never been abrogated. In fact, if we were to accept Bro. Dimond’s argument here, then we’d have to assume that teaching Baptism of Desire is heresy. It would not make sense then that Aquinas is heralded as both a doctor and saint in the Catholic Church and not condemned a heretic.
It must also be noted, infallibility is not reserved to Peter and his successors alone – for the same authority given to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19 is also given to the rest of the Apostles, as a group, in Matthew 18:18. This is why we also attribute infallibility to ecuмenical councils of the Catholic Church. (And it must be noted that the “keys” mentioned in Matthew 16 are not mentioned in Matthew 18 – the keys represent a supremacy of authority which is only mentioned in the context of St. Peter).
Some baptism of desire supporters also bring forward Sess. 7, Can. 4 on the Sacraments to somehow try to prove baptism of desire. But it’s obvious that this canon does not teach that either the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for justification, as some claim, but that it condemns those who assert that neither the sacraments nor the desire for them is necessary for justification, and that faith alone suffices. It does not affirm that either is sufficient, but condemns those who assert that neither is necessary. For a full discussion of this canon we refer you to the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine.
Again, the problem with the above argument is lies in the fact that Trent mentions both. If the Sacrament itself is ALL that matters, then mentioning “desire” would obscure the Truth – and I do not think Bro. Dimond is asserting that Trent obscures the Truth.
It is also quite interesting to consider that whereas the Council of Trent never teaches baptism of desire, it teaches no less than three times (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14 and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (if a person has perfect contrition) can suffice for justification before Penance is actually received. This efficacy of the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is mentioned three times, but the supposed efficacy of the desire for baptism (baptism of desire) is not mentioned at all. This should indicate something to those who believe in baptism of desire: God didn’t allow it to be taught in the infallible Council of Trent or any other Council or even in any Papal encyclical in the history of the Church, because it is an erroneous theory.
Well here Bro. Dimond has issued an absolutely false statement. “The laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof” is clearly mentioned, so to say it is “not mentioned at all” is utterly false.
John 3:5 is true exactly as it is written (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4).
This has already been acknowledged as true, but one must also look at the context! Verses 6 and 7 refute the thesis that Bro. Dimond is so earnestly defending.
If the concept of baptism of desire were a true teaching of the Church, then the Council of Trent definitely would have included it in the canons on Baptism or in the chapters on Justification. But it’s nowhere to be found.
It is not found, explicitly, in the canons on Baptism nor in the chapters on Justification for it is rather obscure and very limited in scope. Extremists on both sides of this matter seem to make a much bigger argument out of Baptism of Desire than is truly there. It must also be considered that every Church council had a focus. Trent focused on Protestants and its purpose was not to layout an exhaustive definition for every Sacrament, but rather to answer their challenges and revolts against the Church. Protestants did not make a point of protest against Baptism of Desire.
It’s also noteworthy that the terms baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not found anywhere even in The Catechism of the Council of Trent - contrary to what many assert. For a discussion of what The Catechism of the Council of Trent does and does not teach on Baptism, consult the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine.
We find Bro. Dimond in another false statement, below is a quote from the Catechism of Trent:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. (http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-b.htm)
2) Is there one baptism or are there three?
Is there only one baptism celebrated in water? Or do three baptisms exist: water, blood and desire? Let us quote the teaching of the Church: The Dogmatic Nicene Creed: "We confess one baptism for the remission of sins." Countless Popes have professed the dogma that there is only one baptism (see issue #6 of our magazine for quotes from no less than 9 other Popes). Did baptism of desire proponents ever wonder why countless Popes have professed that there is only one baptism, and not a single one of them bothered to define the so-called "other two" (desire and blood)? Why has not a single Pope ever used the terms "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Why did two general councils of the Church – Lateran IV and Vienne – define ex cathedra only one baptism which is of water?
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: "But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church."
If the sacrament of baptism brings salvation to children and adults (de fide), then without it there is no salvation!
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: "Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children."
Here Pope Clement V defines as a dogma that ONE BAPTISM must be faithfully confessed by all, which is celebrated in water. This means that all Catholics must profess one baptism of water, not three baptisms: of water, blood and desire. To confess "three baptisms", and not one, is to reject Catholic dogma.
What we have here is a “common fallacy” in rhetoric. Bro. Dimond has levied a “straw man.” There is only one baptism, just as we confess in the Creed. This one baptism is generally manifested in baptism of water, but in a very limited scope – it may be manifest through either blood or desire. (Baptism by blood has not been a topic of this article until this point, but that would be the acceptance of martyrs for the Faith who may not have had the opportunity to receive water baptism prior to death). To assert that proponents of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are saying there are “three baptisms” is to be ignorant of the reality of the confession of one baptism. Is there is more than one Eucharist because there is Body AND Blood and one can receive either and still receive the wholeness of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? By no means! Just as there is one Eucharist, wholly complete in either of two forms; there is one baptism, which may be wholly efficacious whether by water, blood or desire.
3) Are those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism part of the faithful?
Who are the faithful? Can one who has not been baptized be considered part of the faithful? I have not, as yet, heard any believer in baptism of desire try to answer this question. The following facts explain why I have not yet gotten an answer to this question; it is because they cannot answer this question.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
"THERE IS INDEED ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice."
As many of you know, the Catholic Mass is divided into two parts: the Mass of the catechumens (those training to be baptized) and the Mass of the faithful (those baptized). Need one say more? In the early Church, the unsacramentally baptized (i.e., those who had not been baptized with water) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition. This teaching of Tradition is why in the Traditional Rite of Baptism, the unbaptized catechumen is asked what he desires from holy Church, and he answers "Faith." The unbaptized catechumen does not have "the Faith", so he begs the Church for it in the "Sacrament of Faith" (Baptism), which alone makes him one of "the faithful."
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), Bishop and Doctor of the Church:
"For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
"… the instrumental cause [of Justification] is THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, WHICH IS ‘THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH,’ without faith no one is ever justified… THIS FAITH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH APOSTOLIC TRADITION, CATECHUMENS BEG OF THE CHURCH BEFORE THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, when they ask for ‘faith which bestows life eternal,’ (Rit. Rom., Ordo Baptismi) which without hope and charity faith cannot bestow."
And with these facts in mind (that a catechumen "begs" for the faith because he isn’t part of the faithful), remember the definition of Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council: "There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…" The original Latin reads: "Una vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur…" The Latin words nullus omnino mean "absolutely nobody." Absolutely nobody outside the one Church of the faithful is saved. Since the one Church of the faithful only includes those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism – as apostolic tradition, liturgical tradition and Church dogma show – this means that absolutely nobody is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
What Bro. Dimond appears to be overlooking here is that the Church of the Faithful refers to the Church Militant – that is, those still alive in the Church. For those whom Baptism of Desire (or blood) would be applicable would be among either the Church Suffering (those in Purgatory) or the Church Victorious (those in Heaven). In either case, Baptism of Desire is not for the Church Militant, but it MAY apply (again, it is God who is the Judge of this) to those who have died prior to receiving Water Baptism, but had an honest and earnest desire for it.
4) Is Our Lord’s command to be baptized impossible for some to fulfill?
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171:
"Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."
As proven above, God commanded all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra:
"... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…"
Bro. Dimond argues “the supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.” Again it must be stated, what individuals argue is really irrelevant if the Church has a teaching on this matter, and she does. No one can say, with certainty, that God does or does not provide a supernatural means of receiving the Sacrament for those who die with an honest desire to receive the Sacrament. It must also be reiterated that no man can speak for the Judgment of God. It is primarily up to us to teach and emphasize the need for Baptism to fulfill the Lord’s command, but for those limited few who may die while desiring the Sacrament we must leave their Judgment to God.
Is Lefebvrism Catholic?
Recently, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX – Lefebvrists) published two books attacking the teaching of the Church on Baptism. They spend their time trying to figure out ways for people to be saved without baptism – but to no avail. Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau was published by the SSPX in 1999, while Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney was published in 2001. The premise of these books - especially Is Feeneyism Catholic? - is that it is not Catholic to take John 3:5 as it is written. Such a premise not only condemns the teaching of the Council of Trent, that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (as we have shown), but it literally means that you are not Catholic if you believe exactly what the following Magisterial teaching declares:
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Exultate Deo, 1439: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water."
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 (to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops): "Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration."
Pope Pius XI is expressing the truth here, but he does not elaborate on the entire teaching on Baptism. He does not tell us what constitutes a valid baptism, nor the ordinary or extra-ordinary ministers who may validly administer the Sacrament. He doesn’t tell us what the matter, form and intent must be, he only mentions the necessity of Baptism, and those who support the teaching from Trent – which echoed (and certainly did not condemn) the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Here we see the Council of Florence authoritatively teaching that no one at all can be saved without water baptism, and Pope Pius XI teaching that no one can enter the kingdom of God without faith and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the sacrament administered in water).
The fact of the matter is, Quas Primas does not go into the details regarding the eternal rite.
The Society of St. Pius X’s books teach that these statements of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Pius XI are not Catholic. Anyone who obstinately promotes, defends or supports such a view (or the books) is a heretic, which unfortunately also includes the Society of St. Pius V, the C.M.R.I. and most other independent priests. One who would obstinately give financial support to such a group would also be a heretic, for then one would be supporting their heretical position, among others.
We have at least a couple problems with Bro. Dimond’s credibility here. First off, he does not quote nor cite anything from these books. Second, it must be reiterated that what anyone teaches, believes, etc., is irrelevant if the Church has already taught on this matter.
It must also be noted, Bro. Dimond sympathizes with the Society of St. Pius V and the C.M.R.I., and both organizations, as well as the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), are sedevacantists. That is, they believe the Chair of Peter is empty, that Pope John Paul II is not the real and valid pope – and argue that he is, in reality an “anti-pope,” or even The Antichrist. The purpose of this refutation/article is not to refute sedevacantism, so we will not go into details of that matter presently. Suffice it to say – these organizations have already separated themselves from valid Catholicism and articles, such as the one being refuted here, appear to be little more than rationalizations to justify in their minds their separation from the Church.
All of these groups also believe that people can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which totally rejects the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The C.M.R.I. actually printed an article in their magazine, The Reign of Mary, entitled "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church." It is not possible to deny the dogma more directly.
It seems that the MHFM’s lifeboat is getting smaller and smaller. Bro. Dimond, while sympathizing with the sedevacantist views of the other two organizations he mentions, now appears to be outright condemning the C.M.R.I. organization. Is the Ark of the New Covenant restricted to adherents and supporters of the MHFM? (Rhetorical question).
The remainder of this section from Bro. Dimond’s article consists solely of attacks on the books presented by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Since it is not the goal of this article/refutation to defend SSPX nor books they have produced, we will skip to the next section.
Strange Heresy?
In May of 1999, the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, NH accused us in their newsletter of holding a "strange heresy".
This whole section is primarily a dispute between the two sedevacantist camps, thus rather than getting involved in their infighting, this section will also be skipped.
John 3:5 vs. John 6:54
Some writers, including Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism Catholic?, have tried to refute a literal interpretation of John 3:5 by appealing to the words of Our Lord in John 6:54: "Amen, amen I say to you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." They argue that the language in this verse is the same as in John 3:5, and yet the Church doesn’t take Jn. 6:54 literally – for infants don’t need to receive the Eucharist to be saved. But the argument falters because the proponents of this argument have missed a crucial difference in the wording of these two verses.
John 6:54- "Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU EAT the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."
John 3:5- "Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Our Lord Jesus Christ, when speaking on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist in John 6:54, does not say: "unless a man eat the flesh of the Son of man…" He says: "Except you…" His words, therefore, are clearly intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. Since the people to whom He was speaking could receive the Eucharist, they had to in order to be saved. This applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, which is what the Church teaches.
Again, Bro. Dimond has a problem with context if he is trying to limit the teaching of John 6:53 (not 54, it is verse 54 with 51 and 58 which actually refute Bro. Dimond’s thesis) to just to whom Jesus was speaking and not “every man.” Let us look at the context:
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Verse 51 clearly refers to “…if any man…” and verse 54 opens with “Whoso…” indicating no limitation; likewise verse 58 is not limiting in scope regarding “he that eateth…” In other words, the context utterly crushes Bro. Dimond’s thesis. Verse 53 actually states that those who do NOT “eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood… have no life in (them).” It would seem that in his zeal to disprove Baptism of Desire – Bro. Dimond is sacrificing one of the strongest support sections from Scripture to defend Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus (EENS), another tenant, actually defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, which MHFM fiercely (and rightly so) defends. It seems that Bro. Dimond is biting of his nose to spite his face?
But in John 3:5 Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written (see Council of Carthage, Denz 102; Florence, Denz. 696; Trent, Sess. 5, no. 4, Denz. 791; Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4; Trent, Can. 2 and 5 on Baptism, Denz. 858 and 861.).
Earlier Bro. Dimond criticized Denzinger (Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated by Roy J. Deferrari) as a “horrible mistranslation” but now repeatedly cites the same source? For those following along in their own Denzinger, the reference that offends Bro. Dimond (“…or a desire for it…”) is found in D.796. Why is such a “horrible mistranslation” now seen as a source worth citing?
Aside from the inconsistency here, Bro. Dimond has a bigger problem. The word “you” can have ambiguous meaning here, but even if we grant him the way he uses it, in the case of the Eucharist, it is not limited just to those who understand Jesus’ words. Bro. Dimond relates it to Baptism, because everyone can receive Baptism – adults and infants, but so too can infants receive Eucharist! His statement is very Latin-centric, not recognizing that our Eastern brethren give all three rites of initiation to infants. We (Latins) have our reasons for waiting for a child to reach the age of reason, but this waiting does not preclude the “ability” for an infant to receive the Eucharist.
Also, one should note that Trent’s Canons on Baptism are Canons on the Sacrament (Canones de sacramento baptismi). This means that Can. 5 (see below) condemns anyone who says that the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e., water baptism) is not necessary for salvation. It also takes John 3:5 literally once again, as the Church always does.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Can. 5: "IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema."
John 3:5-7: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God… WONDER NOT, that I said to thee, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN."
Baptism is not optional, and I know of no supporter of Baptism of Desire that says so. Thus, we have another straw man argument.
In conclusion, it would seem those who oppose Baptism of Desire are making “much ado about nothing.” Baptism of Desire truly can only be applied in a very limited scope. If one “desires” baptism and, through not fault of their own, are not baptized prior to death, then God MAY judge their desire as sufficient for justification. There is also no definitive teaching that one IS justified through the “desire” for the Sacrament. Likewise, to put this in perspective, some seem to overly defend this “possibility” and may actually be doing damage to souls if such souls get a false sense of security that actual baptism is not a necessity to actually seek. Our focus, as faithful Catholics, should be to preach the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, since it is commanded by God. IF there is an obscure chance that someone desires Baptism, but dies prior to receiving it – then we should leave the judgment of such a person’s soul to God. He alone knows the heart of anyone else and for us to presume condemnation on anyone is a usurpation of His role as Judge. I reiterate, it can be just as dangerous for an extremist who blindly defends Baptism of Desire as it is for an extremist who obstinately denies the teaching.
in medio stat virtus
(Virtue is in the middle)
Additional sources:
http://www.romancatholicism.org/lbod-thesis.html
http://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com/Baptism%20of%20Desire.htm
http://www.stthomasaquinas.net/baptism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406611.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406612.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406802.htm
-
One of our mothers had a baby die upon birth. The mother was bleeding out, and the doctors focused on saving her and noone thought about baptising the baby. At the funeral Father said the baby had received the baptism of desire since the parents had taken baptismal preparation classes, and had filed the paperwork with the intention of having a baptism. He was able to annoint the baby but after she was dead.
-
Baptism of Desire
Is it a Catholic Teaching?
Yes. Next question?
-
Baptism of Desire
Is it a Catholic teaching?
No. Next question?
-
The bottom line is: You can’t reject Vatican II and advocate BOD.
So what about the great theologians who advocated Baptism of Desire? Would they have accepted the modernist theology of Vatican II?
The fact that modernists can exploit and abuse the concept of baptism of desire in order to try to slip implicit universal salvation into their schemes doesn't mean Baptism of Desire is wrong.
-
One of our mothers had a baby die upon birth. The mother was bleeding out, and the doctors focused on saving her and noone thought about baptising the baby. At the funeral Father said the baby had received the baptism of desire since the parents had taken baptismal preparation classes, and had filed the paperwork with the intention of having a baptism. He was able to annoint the baby but after she was dead.
OT So are we supposed to baptize the dead who have not been baptized? With my second miscarriage I baptized the baby's body with tap water. Was that right, wrong, doesn't matter?
-
One of our mothers had a baby die upon birth. The mother was bleeding out, and the doctors focused on saving her and noone thought about baptising the baby. At the funeral Father said the baby had received the baptism of desire since the parents had taken baptismal preparation classes, and had filed the paperwork with the intention of having a baptism. He was able to annoint the baby but after she was dead.
OT So are we supposed to baptize the dead who have not been baptized? With my second miscarriage I baptized the baby's body with tap water. Was that right, wrong, doesn't matter?
I dont know, Tiffany. I know a priest here in Chicago baptised a dying infant, he found freezing in the church in winter, with spittle. That incident was the first I had heard that a parent's desire affected the baby. I had usually heard of BOD when a family denies the faith to others who wanted.
-
Trent requires the "grace of baptism" to be saved, not water baptism per se.
God can supply the grace of Baptism through any means He wishes.
Christ said we must eat His flesh or we have no life in us.
Does this mean baptized infants go to Hell if they die before Holy Communion?
-
Consider:
In ages soaked with religious indifferentism, prepared by two centuries of Freemasonic agitation and propaganda, BOD was the spark that lit the fire of Vatican II. If an “accident” or “bad luck” can make water baptism “impossible” for someone who truly desires it, then they can make every other conceivable requisite for salvation impossible as well. And if an “extraordinary means” exists for accidents and impossibilities in one case, then they can exist in all cases. This many not have been clear to theologians living in an earlier age, but in our own age it would be petty and arbitrary to deny it.
Yes, this.
This for me is probably the biggest argument I have against BOD.
BOD takes the Divine Providence completely out of the picture whilst the person is alive, then activates some sort of misunderstood version of it after death.
-
Consider:
In ages soaked with religious indifferentism, prepared by two centuries of Freemasonic agitation and propaganda, BOD was the spark that lit the fire of Vatican II. If an “accident” or “bad luck” can make water baptism “impossible” for someone who truly desires it, then they can make every other conceivable requisite for salvation impossible as well. And if an “extraordinary means” exists for accidents and impossibilities in one case, then they can exist in all cases. This many not have been clear to theologians living in an earlier age, but in our own age it would be petty and arbitrary to deny it.
And also:
What we end up with is this: one must know that the Catholic Church was established by Christ for his salvation, and knowingly reject it, before he is culpable for not belonging to it. And yet even then, one could argue that a person who would actually do such a thing – and such a person would be incredibly rare – was mentally disturbed to the point of inculpability. Hence we arrive at universal salvation.
The bottom line is: You can’t reject Vatican II and advocate BOD.
So St. Thomas Aquinas, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent (not to mention Popes Pius IX and Pius X) were all wrong? That seems highly unlikely.
-
One of our mothers had a baby die upon birth. The mother was bleeding out, and the doctors focused on saving her and noone thought about baptising the baby. At the funeral Father said the baby had received the baptism of desire since the parents had taken baptismal preparation classes, and had filed the paperwork with the intention of having a baptism. He was able to annoint the baby but after she was dead.
OT So are we supposed to baptize the dead who have not been baptized? With my second miscarriage I baptized the baby's body with tap water. Was that right, wrong, doesn't matter?
In my unqualified opinion I think it was right and commendable.
Please clarify if anything that follows is incorrect any who read this:
I believe that conditional Exteme Unction is allowed and encouraged up to 3 hours after it appears that the person has died. Just in case the soul is still there. I'm not making this up, I have read this from a reliable source thought I don't remember the source. Maybe Fenton. Again others who are knowledgeable on this please respond.
I was wondering if the same would apply to baptism.
But the objective response is "no we do not baptize the dead". But if we are not 100% sure they are dead then . . .I sure would. Wouldn't rather be safe than sorry on such an issue. How would you feel if you found out at your judgement that your child is not enjoying the Beatific Vision because you thought he was dead when he wasn't?
The desire of the parents works for sacramental baptism but not for BOD. Baptism of desire is only applicable to those who have reached the age of reason. That is why the Limbo of the babies exists, baptism of desire is not possible for them.
-
One of our mothers had a baby die upon birth. The mother was bleeding out, and the doctors focused on saving her and noone thought about baptising the baby. At the funeral Father said the baby had received the baptism of desire since the parents had taken baptismal preparation classes, and had filed the paperwork with the intention of having a baptism. He was able to annoint the baby but after she was dead.
OT So are we supposed to baptize the dead who have not been baptized? With my second miscarriage I baptized the baby's body with tap water. Was that right, wrong, doesn't matter?
In my unqualified opinion I think it was right and commendable.
Please clarify if anything that follows is incorrect any who read this:
I believe that conditional Exteme Unction is allowed and encouraged up to 3 hours after it appears that the person has died. Just in case the soul is still there. I'm not making this up, I have read this from a reliable source thought I don't remember the source. Maybe Fenton. Again others who are knowledgeable on this please respond.
I was wondering if the same would apply to baptism.
But the objective response is "no we do not baptize the dead". But if we are not 100% sure they are dead then . . .I sure would. Wouldn't rather be safe than sorry on such an issue. How would you feel if you found out at your judgement that your child is not enjoying the Beatific Vision because you thought he was dead when he wasn't?
The desire of the parents works for sacramental baptism but not for BOD. Baptism of desire is only applicable to those who have reached the age of reason. That is why the Limbo of the babies exists, baptism of desire is not possible for them.
This is pretty much how I was taught. Especially in the case of miscarriages.
There is no way to know for sure if the soul left the body yet or not so you baptize the child at the earliest opportunity just in case. I also have heard about the 3 hour thing.
Spittle will not work no matter what, it needs to be water.
-
One of our mothers had a baby die upon birth. The mother was bleeding out, and the doctors focused on saving her and noone thought about baptising the baby. At the funeral Father said the baby had received the baptism of desire since the parents had taken baptismal preparation classes, and had filed the paperwork with the intention of having a baptism. He was able to annoint the baby but after she was dead.
OT So are we supposed to baptize the dead who have not been baptized? With my second miscarriage I baptized the baby's body with tap water. Was that right, wrong, doesn't matter?
In my unqualified opinion I think it was right and commendable.
Please clarify if anything that follows is incorrect any who read this:
I believe that conditional Exteme Unction is allowed and encouraged up to 3 hours after it appears that the person has died. Just in case the soul is still there. I'm not making this up, I have read this from a reliable source thought I don't remember the source. Maybe Fenton. Again others who are knowledgeable on this please respond.
I was wondering if the same would apply to baptism.
But the objective response is "no we do not baptize the dead". But if we are not 100% sure they are dead then . . .I sure would. Wouldn't rather be safe than sorry on such an issue. How would you feel if you found out at your judgement that your child is not enjoying the Beatific Vision because you thought he was dead when he wasn't?
The desire of the parents works for sacramental baptism but not for BOD. Baptism of desire is only applicable to those who have reached the age of reason. That is why the Limbo of the babies exists, baptism of desire is not possible for them.
This is pretty much how I was taught. Especially in the case of miscarriages.
There is no way to know for sure if the soul left the body yet or not so you baptize the child at the earliest opportunity just in case. I also have heard about the 3 hour thing.
Spittle will not work no matter what, it needs to be water.
Regarding spittle, I saw in a movie where a missionary to the America's in the 1800's used spittle to baptize someone (when that is all he had). I asked a reliable Priest about this and he agreed with your assessment.
I was afraid I was going to get hammered on my last post. There is still time, we will see what tomorrow brings.
-
I think it's a good thing that reasoned discussion about this can take place.
There doesn't need to be shrill accusations of the most derisive sort against each
other. This is the reason that Papal definition and legitimate authority
exist, to settle disputes over doctrine. But we don't have any doctrinal or
dogmatic definitions going on these days, ever since (officially) just 50 years
ago today (if you live in Singapore, like Fr. Pfeiffer does for the moment).
This is then October 11th, 50 years to the day after Pope John XXIII of
infalicitous memory uttered the now infamous words of his deplorable Opening
Speech of the abominable Vatican II in that regrettable and lost opportunity so
long ago.
Many of us discussing this were not even born yet, and others were children or
infants. A few were adolescents and even fewer of us were adults.
Practically none of us were middle aged and certainly none of us were elderly.
Some day, someone will be saying the same thing about us, here today!
The thing that irks me about so-called baptism of desire is how it is abused.
How does a missionary preach the necessity of Baptism when his audience is
told that all you really need to do is have a desire for Baptism, and you "will
be saved?" How many souls have gone to hell because they heard that, and
thought, 'Well, as soon as I'm baptized then I need to start obeying all these
laws and regulations?' What's the incentive to convert and follow the Faith when
your new 'ace in the hole' is to just have a vague longing for Baptism the
moment you die?
Or, according to Evaristo's 'new and improved Sister Lucy' of October 11th, 1993,
'conversion' is now the freedom to choose your own path, IOW a Muslim can be
a better Muslim and a Hindu a better Hindu. Which, BTW, is the logical extension
of the erroneous thought of the pagan, above, 'Well, as soon as I'm baptized then
I need to start obeying all these laws and regulations?' What's the incentive to
convert and follow the Faith when your new 'ace in the hole' is to just have a
vague longing for Baptism the moment you die?
The thing that irks me about so-called baptism of desire is the damage it does, or
rather, has the potential of doing, to the missionary effort worldwide.
-
I had never heard of spittle before, but the priest who baptised the dying baby said he did it running to get her to warmth. I know we are taught that the element is water, but I guess I would try anything to help make paradise a reality. These issues are they kind where I hope God's merciful heart is even bigger than we know.
-
Or, according to Evaristo's 'new and improved Sister Lucy' of October 11th, 1993,
'conversion' is now the freedom to choose your own path, IOW a Muslim can be
a better Muslim and a Hindu a better Hindu. Which, BTW, is the logical extension
of the erroneous thought of the pagan, above, 'Well, as soon as I'm baptized then
I need to start obeying all these laws and regulations?' What's the incentive to
convert and follow the Faith when your new 'ace in the hole' is to just have a
vague longing for Baptism the moment you die?
The thing that irks me about so-called baptism of desire is the damage it does, or rather, has the potential of doing, to the missionary effort worldwide.
Neil,
Is the Sr Lucy of 1993 quoted as saying this? That conversion is the freedom to choose your own path? I have yet to dive into all the Fatima literature out there.
-
Or, according to Evaristo's 'new and improved Sister Lucy' of October 11th, 1993,
'conversion' is now the freedom to choose your own path, IOW a Muslim can be
a better Muslim and a Hindu a better Hindu. Which, BTW, is the logical extension
of the erroneous thought of the pagan, above, 'Well, as soon as I'm baptized then
I need to start obeying all these laws and regulations?' What's the incentive to
convert and follow the Faith when your new 'ace in the hole' is to just have a
vague longing for Baptism the moment you die?
The thing that irks me about so-called baptism of desire is the damage it does, or rather, has the potential of doing, to the missionary effort worldwide.
Neil,
Is the Sr Lucy of 1993 quoted as saying this? That conversion is the freedom to choose your own path? I have yet to dive into all the Fatima literature out there.
You should try this other thread:
Welcome-to-October-Eleventh-the-NewChurchNewYear (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Welcome-to-October-Eleventh-the-NewChurchNewYear)
-
The point is if you say that it is Church teaching that a soul can be saved due to 'impossibilities' then why object to Vatican II? Why limit and restrict the concept to 'rare exceptions'.
Vatican II says that people can be saved BY their false religions. That is not at all what BOD is. Rather, BOD means that people who die with the desire to be baptized die as members of the Church.
-
There is no such teaching by any true Pope and/or Council which declared and defined that baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is a truth. Instead, the Popes and Councils infallibly taught that one can have hope of receiving salvation only if that person has first received the "sacrament" of baptism.
NOTE: The "sacrament" of baptism is only Water Baptism
Rome admits that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are not the "sacrament" of baptism. Therefore, one must be Water Baptized to get into Heaven. This is Catholic dogmatic truth.
Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are false teachings that today's modernists try to use to claim non-Catholics can receive salvation.
-
Also, I believe all babies get into Heaven because God sends angels and saints to water baptize them or God water baptizes the babies himself.
-
BOD means that people who die with the desire to be baptized die as members of the Church.
If desire alone is sufficient then all men or nearly all men are saved. Their desire puts them inside the Church.
It is interesting that many heresies are the over-reaction to other heresies.
For instance on one side you have universal salvationism and as a reaction to that you have the idea that not a single person in the history of the world was saved unless he was baptized with water. The teach that this can be done in a mystical way by some angel or Christ Himself yet they deny that God can give the effect of water batism in a mystical way without physically pouring water on anyone's head.
It is important to distinguish that the universal salvationist teach that all can be saved by their false religions whereas the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that those, due to invincible ignorance are members are false religions, can be saved in those religions, by the Catholic Church by having, at least an implicit desire to join her and who actually join her at the moment of death through baptism of desire.
The Church and the God she represents is not unreasonable and does not demand the impossible, neither does she condemn to eternal fire one for a "crime" one is not guilty of.
You can put as many people in Hell as you like but thanks be to God it is not "you" those who condemn de fide all non-card carrying Catholics, but God who judges the heart and subjective will and culpability of others which cannot be judged by man.
-
BOD means that people who die with the desire to be baptized die as members of the Church.
If desire alone is sufficient then all men or nearly all men are saved. Their desire puts them inside the Church.
I don't think you can say that all men desire to be baptized into the Catholic Church. That isn't logical reasoning.
-
BOD means that people who die with the desire to be baptized die as members of the Church.
If desire alone is sufficient then all men or nearly all men are saved. Their desire puts them inside the Church.
I don't think you can say that all men desire to be baptized into the Catholic Church. That isn't logical reasoning.
Remember they must be INVINCIBLY ignorant of the necessity to join the Catholic Church and have perfect charity and even then BOD is only possible, not definite. That means not only do they not know of the necessity to join the Church. But they cannot reasonably be expected to know it. And they have to be of good will, TRULY trying to do what they believe God wants them to do and live their lives they way God wants them to. I would not want to switch places with anyone in a false religion no matter how ignorant they are.
-
BOD means that people who die with the desire to be baptized die as members of the Church.
If desire alone is sufficient then all men or nearly all men are saved. Their desire puts them inside the Church.
I don't think you can say that all men desire to be baptized into the Catholic Church. That isn't logical reasoning.
Remember they must be INVINCIBLY ignorant of the necessity to join the Catholic Church and have perfect charity and even then BOD is only possible, not definite. That means not only do they not know of the necessity to join the Church. But they cannot reasonably be expected to know it. And they have to be of good will, TRULY trying to do what they believe God wants them to do and live their lives they way God wants them to. I would not want to switch places with anyone in a false religion no matter how ignorant they are.
When it comes to BOD, invincible ignorance should never enter the conversation.
Whoever dies ignorant of the faith whether already baptized or not is probably ignorant of baptism and would not desire it. Additionally, because of their own ignorance, there would be no contrition for sins because they were ignorant of any need to be contrite.
For me, it is just as impossible to believe that God withholds or does not provide the necessary elements which He created, established and made a necessity for us, as it is impossible to believe that one ignorant, nay invincibly ignorant would desire the same.
-
BOD means that people who die with the desire to be baptized die as members of the Church.
If desire alone is sufficient then all men or nearly all men are saved. Their desire puts them inside the Church.
I don't think you can say that all men desire to be baptized into the Catholic Church. That isn't logical reasoning.
Remember they must be INVINCIBLY ignorant of the necessity to join the Catholic Church and have perfect charity and even then BOD is only possible, not definite. That means not only do they not know of the necessity to join the Church. But they cannot reasonably be expected to know it. And they have to be of good will, TRULY trying to do what they believe God wants them to do and live their lives they way God wants them to. I would not want to switch places with anyone in a false religion no matter how ignorant they are.
When it comes to BOD, invincible ignorance should never enter the conversation.
Whoever dies ignorant of the faith whether already baptized or not is probably ignorant of baptism and would not desire it. Additionally, because of their own ignorance, there would be no contrition for sins because they were ignorant of any need to be contrite.
For me, it is just as impossible to believe that God withholds or does not provide the necessary elements which He created, established and made a necessity for us, as it is impossible to believe that one ignorant, nay invincibly ignorant would desire the same.
They implicitly desire it, meaning if they realized baptism was necessary for salvation they would surely be baptized.
-
BOD means that people who die with the desire to be baptized die as members of the Church.
If desire alone is sufficient then all men or nearly all men are saved. Their desire puts them inside the Church.
I don't think you can say that all men desire to be baptized into the Catholic Church. That isn't logical reasoning.
By what basis do you restrict the concept?
As I already said, someone who DESIRES to be baptized, but dies before they are able to, dies as a member of the Church. It does not in any way imply universal salvation.
-
When it comes to BOD, invincible ignorance should never enter the conversation.
Whoever dies ignorant of the faith whether already baptized or not is probably ignorant of baptism and would not desire it. Additionally, because of their own ignorance, there would be no contrition for sins because they were ignorant of any need to be contrite.
For me, it is just as impossible to believe that God withholds or does not provide the necessary elements which He created, established and made a necessity for us, as it is impossible to believe that one ignorant, nay invincibly ignorant would desire the same.
They implicitly desire it, meaning if they realized baptism was necessary for salvation they would surely be baptized.
I keep wanting to say that if they realized that baptism was necessary, then they would have been baptized, but I think that thinking is presumed to be too simple.
Seeing as how the ignorant person did not realize that baptism existed so could not have known that it was necessary, then there is no way they could desire that which he did not know existed, not even implicitly.
What reasoning can be used to judge that the dieing person would be desiring a sacrament they never knew existed and presumably were happily ignorant of their whole life? That is not rational thinking, if anything, that is wishful thinking based on human compassion and reasoning.
More likely, IMO, that the dieing ignorant person would be thinking of how much they are dreading death, trying to cling to life and thinking of their spouse, children, parents, job etc. thinking of whatever it is that one thinks of as their life flashes before their eyes the instant before death..............................but desiring the sacrament of baptism when they do not even know it exists? I cannot see it.
That is one thing that I personally find impossible to accept.
Another thing I find impossible to believe is that IF, on his death bed, the ignorant person some how actually did have a desire, let's say he is speaking, and has an explicit desire for a sacrament that he never knew about (?), and in all sincerity desired this thing he knew nothing about (?) but that he knows he needs (?), please, in all seriousness, dictate the words that the person about to die might use at such a time to express this implicit desire explicitly.
IOW, I want to read what is presumed to be going through that ignorant person's mind as though he were speaking aloud, desiring a sacrament he does not know exists.
-
Of course baptism of desire is a Catholic teaching, such that it is objectively (ironically only an inculpable ignorance of this would excuse) a mortal sin to doubt or deny it, nor has there been any theological controversy of any sort on this point in at least the last three centuries, among those qualified and approved by ecclesiastical authority to teach the Faith.
I need hardly add the great authorities of St.Thomas, St.Alphonsus, St.Peter Canasius, St.Bernard, St.Bonaventure, Hugh of St.Victor etc who personally opposed Peter Abelard on this point. If it is not a Catholic teaching, then Catechisms, Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church have misled and deceived us, which is outrageous.
Baptism is Trinitarian. The three are one, so it is written in Sacred Scripture, the water, the blood and the spirit.
Cornelius was baptised by desire at the preaching of the Prince of the Apostles. This is found in St.Augustine and St.Thomas. The good thief also, so in St.Cyprian. The Holy Innocents by blood, so in the liturgical Tradition of the Church. And the Emperor Valentian in St.Ambrose.
Why is it you so easily believe there is an extraordinary means for the sacrament of penance, but absolutely and absurdly refuse to recognize the same for baptism, especially given that pretty much the same principle applies?
Your reasoning is analogous to priests who would reason "We must never preach about perfect contrition, else no one would come to confession!" Ridiculous. Perfect contrition involves sorrow for one's sins out of a true love of God for his own sake, and will never lead souls to despise the sacrament. Rather, those who are genuinely contrite will seek the sacrament when this becomes possible for them, but they are nonetheless instantly restored to grace.
It is similar with baptism of desire, which also involves a desire animated by perfect charity.
The precise error here is believing that "God is bound to the sacraments". The truth, as St.Thomas says, is that God wills to show His power precisely by showing the opposite, that such things as the matter or even the minister are entirely dispensable for Him, and that when He deems necessary, He gives the grace of the sacraments without such intermediaries. So it is for penance, and so likewise for baptism.
-
The precise error here is believing that "God is bound to the sacraments". The truth, as St.Thomas says, is that God wills to show His power precisely by showing the opposite, that such things as the matter or even the minister are entirely dispensable for Him, and that when He deems necessary, He gives the grace of the sacraments without such intermediaries. So it is for penance, and so likewise for baptism.
BOD is *not* de fide so therefore we are free to *not* believe it.
The precise error is that it is we who are bound by the Sacrament, not God, yet BOD proponents judge that God grants salvation without it based on teachings of learned fathers of the Church - but it is not the universal and constant teaching and, IMO, not only can be wrong but needs to have many important contradictions answered.
God can do anything He wants - one of the things He wanted was for us to be baptized, that is the only reason He instituted it.
Because God is Almighty, no one who sincerely desires baptism will be denied it - this is the way the Divine Providence works. That is what the universal and constant teaching of the Church is on the doctrine of Divine Providence.
The constant and universal - and also infallibly defined and declared teaching of the Church is that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. As regards Baptism, this dogma IS de fide and whoever does not believe it, without any shred of doubt whatsoever, sins.
I am still hoping someone will answer my question from the end of my post above, but I won't hold my breath.
-
BOD is *not* de fide
To the contrary, St.Alphonsus indeed affirms, "it is de Fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire"
so therefore we are free to *not* believe it.
Well, even if the premise was true, this conclusion would not follow. All are agreed baptism of desire is at least proximate to the Faith, so the following would apply.
(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Source "On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951)"
So it is a mortal sin, objectively speaking. Ignorance, of course, may excuse if it was inculpable.
The precise error is that it is we who are bound by the Sacrament, not God, yet BOD proponents judge that God grants salvation without it based on teachings of learned fathers of the Church - but it is not the universal and constant teaching and, IMO, not only can be wrong but needs to have many important contradictions answered.
Well, St.Thomas in explaining the doctrine has already, as he is wont to do, mostly dismantled almost all objections that can be offered against this doctrine. It has also been explained in some depth by the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani along with the express approval of Pope Pius XII.
Now, even if you don't accept the authority of this letter, at least reading it may help you understand implicit desire for baptism better. From the questions you ask, it seems you may not have read or at least fully remembered what it said. Correct me if I am wrong. Here are some excerpts.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
...
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6).
Because God is Almighty, no one who sincerely desires baptism will be denied it - this is the way the Divine Providence works. That is what the universal and constant teaching of the Church is on the doctrine of Divine Providence.
Certainly, but extraordinary means of the sacraments themselves are examples of Divine Providence in action par excellence. The matter or water is only a poor creation of God, the minister as well only a poor instrument, both can be utterly dispensed with, if God in His supreme wisdom so decides, by the sanctifying action of His Spirit alone without these ordinary means in extraordinary circuмstances.
The Doctors of the Church, and the Church herself, tell us that He so decides. Therefore, we must regard the matter as settled.
The constant and universal - and also infallibly defined and declared teaching of the Church is that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Which must be understood as the Church herself understands it, and as it has always been understood, as St.Thomas explains
"The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed. (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57)" [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?]
As to your question, I think Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Letter as well as the Holy Office's authoritative clarification should suffice. Again,
"an implicit desire [is] so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God ... It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity." etc
Finally, the letter sounds a warning,
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.”
Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
-
BOD is *not* de fide
To the contrary, St.Alphonsus indeed affirms, "it is de Fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire"
With all due respect to St. Alphonsus, one of my absolute favorite patron saints, him saying that BOD is de fide carries little more weight than you saying it - again, with all due respect. The great saint was not a pope - in this case it's too bad he wasn't a pope.
so therefore we are free to *not* believe it.
Well, even if the premise was true, this conclusion would not follow. All are agreed baptism of desire is at least proximate to the Faith, so the following would apply.
But all are *not* agreed because it is *not* the universal nor the constant (from the time of the Apostles) teaching of the Church. Only the Sacrament of Baptism is. Only the Sacrament enjoys the universal and constant teaching of the Church - and it has been infallibly defined which makes it certainly de fide. As such, we are bound under pain of mortal sin to believe that without the sacrament, we will never see heaven.
By the same token, we can be 100% confident that if one were to die defending the dogma of the necessity of the sacrament, that person would die a martyr. The same cannot be said for BOD because it is not de fide. So we know that we are bound to believe that without the Sacrament, there is no salvation - that is de fide.
Proximate to the faith is not De Fide, as such we are not bound under pain of sin to believe it.
Because of the logical arguments against it, which, regardless of what *some* popes and some of the fathers of the Church taught, the arguments need to be settled - not blindly brushed aside simply because *some* of the great fathers of the Church taught it, we are not bound to blind obedience to a prox. fide teaching that is not 100% in harmony with that which certainly is de fide.
If we are then I would love to see who taught that please.
-
With all due respect to St. Alphonsus, one of my absolute favorite patron saints, him saying that BOD is de fide carries little more weight than you saying it - again, with all due respect.
Sure, but likewise with all due respect to you, Stubborn, I must disagree. St.Alphonsus is a Doctor of the Church, so his classification carries a great deal of weight. He was a diligent and learned man in such matters apart from being a Saint. Now, which Doctors of the Church can you find that even come close to suggesting, as you seem to do, that BoD is in fact on the other side, i.e. is gravely erroneous or even heretical?
Also, tell me, do you believe in perfect contrition as an extraordinary means of the sacrament of penance? If so, do you agree then, that extraordinary means do not contradict, but rather exemplify the action of divine Providence?
Now, there are a variety of theological grades of certainty (explained in the link above, for example, "de fide", "Proximate to faith", "Dogmatic fact", "Certain" on one side and proportionate censures on the other, so for example if a certain proposition is de fide, its negation or contrary proposition is heresy; if it is proximate to faith, its negation or contrary proposition is proximate to error and it is a mortal sin to insist on it, etc).
I've cited a widely regarded theological manual in proof of this. Again,
(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
But all are *not* agreed because it is *not* the universal nor the constant (from the time of the Apostles) teaching of the Church.
Only the Sacrament of Baptism is. Only the Sacrament enjoys the universal and constant teaching of the Church
When it is said "only the sacrament", the Fathers and the Doctors meant "the grace of the sacrament" (which is always necessary) but you think "the matter of the sacrament" (which can be dispensed by God).
Likewise, in penance, the necessity of confessing all sins explicitly is dispensed with for those who have perfect contrition and for whom access to the sacrament is hindered.
Again, the dogmas of the Church must be understood as the Church herself understands them and as she has always understood them and explained them through her Doctors. For it was not to private judgment that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of Faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. He who hears her, hears Him.
By the same token, we can be 100% confident that if one were to die defending the dogma of the necessity of the sacrament, that person would die a martyr.
This is kind of amusing. If Fr.Feeney had died under excommunication, would his followers have maintained that he died outside the Church, where there is no salvation? Or would they have said that God sees what man does not, and that is sufficient? If the latter, they already refute themselves.
I want to expand on the example in Catholic life wherein something is implicit. In the confession of our sins, we are obliged to confess explicitly all sins in number and kind. This is necessary for our salvation. But sometimes it happens, through no fault of our own, after a diligent examination of conscience, being truly sorry for all our sins, we are able to remember only some of them. Still, we are restored to grace, because we have implicitly had contrition for all of them.
It is similar for souls that are firmly resolved to do all that God requires, even if they do not know His will in every detail, which includes the desire for baptism because God requires baptism, and if they love Him for His own sake with perfect charity.
Again, anyone who considers this seriously will realize how rare such souls are, and how precarious is their state. For even among Catholics, there are few who love God for His own sake, how much less in those who are in error? We have the Cross always before us to remind us of God's great love for us, which makes it easy for us to love Him. We have the examples of the Saints, frequent recourse to the sacraments, sound doctrine and other superabundant aids as Pope Pius XII says, whereas those baptized only by desire, have none of this. How great is the danger.
This is why, for a thousand years and more, those who believed most staunchly in baptism of desire, never hindered, but rather were most zealous in the missionary effort themselves.
So, let me ask in turn, again, please show me one Doctor of the Church who claims BoD is heretical, or is in any way a suspect or erroneous teaching.
-
I hate it when this happens but since formatting is broke on this post, I will just reply to the first few points - perhaps it'll decide to work on the next reply..................
I do not mean to suggest that BOD, depending on which version of BOD one subscribes too, is heretical - some versions are certainly heretical, certainly other versions are worthy of question. Either way, I cannot admit BOD always is heretical due to the fact that saints have taught it.
I am saying that no one addresses the contradictions that certainly exist. The contradiction of Our Lords own command, the contradiction of de fide teaching and the contradiction between BOD and Divine Providence.
There is never any acknowledgement by BOD believers that one the one hand, we are taught from childhood that we must be baptized or we cannot get to heaven, and unbaptized babies, the most innocent of all humans go to Limbo and "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" - and I could go on and on. OTOH, sacramental baptism is not necessary for salvation because there is a BOD.
If that is not contradictory then I do not know what is - and no one who supports BOD ever addresses these contradictions. It's as if they are nonexistent.
Nishant asked.............
Also, tell me, do you believe in perfect contrition as an extraordinary means of the sacrament of penance? If so, do you agree then, that extraordinary means do not contradict, but rather exemplify the action of divine Providence?[/quote]
Certainly I believe in perfect contrition for the remission of sins as an extraordinary means of the Sacrament of penance, we just never know if our contrition was perfect enough for God - and should we die before we can confess those sins for which we were perfectly sorry for before our next confession (which we are bound to do) we would be saved - but we can never know if our contrition was perfect enough and we cannot even approach that sacrament if we are not first baptized. The priest cannot grant us absolution if he knew we were not baptized and if he did not know, the absolution would be null and void.
Even if the extraordinary means for forgiveness were practiced, Holy Mother the Church teaches that one must still go to confession before receiving communion or they receive communion sacrilegiously.
The other fact involved here is that we cannot ever know if God actually forgave us in our perfect contrition because only He knows and only He decides if our contrition was "perfect enough" to be forgiven. BOD always presumes God will automatically have to forgive us when that is not the way it works.
It is a fact that we can never be sure if our contrition is perfect enough for God - which is why God instituted the sacrament of penance - which is where we know that God accepts an imperfect contrition provided we explicitly confess our sins to the priest. That is why Holy Mother the Church teaches us that if we do not confess those sins at our next confession that we will be guilty of committing a sacrilege. . . . . .all because there is only one sure way to obtain the forgiveness for which we are contrite for - only through the sacrament of penance.
Additionally, if we ever did achieve perfect contrition, it is the result of our own immense sorrow for offending God by our sins and what we did, not Divine Providence.
God gave us the conscience and the free will to either reject or accept the graces He offers (provides) which, depending on whether we reject or accept them, will determine the dictates of our conscience as to whether or not we are contrite or not. But Divine Providence does not force upon us the grace to be perfectly contrite. We are not St. Paul. He was the only Chosen Vessel of Election far as I know.
Divine Providence, properly applied in the case of your above example re: as an extraordinary means of the sacrament of penance, is simply this: God will, at some point, provide the sacrament of penance to the penitent. It may happen tomorrow or a year from now, but God will provide the penitent the opportunity to confess his sins if the penitent chooses to - if for no other reason than to put the penitent's conscience at ease to know that his sins are certainly forgiven.
-
Well, Stubborn, I think we are making some progress at least in understanding each other's position better. I agree with most of what you wrote, but this statement surprised me.
Additionally, if we ever did achieve perfect contrition, it is the result of our own immense sorrow for offending God by our sins and what we did, not Divine Providence.
This is simply not true. Please cite some source for this. "Our own immense sorrow" would be purely natural merit, altogether without value. Only if our contrition is supernatural, and in response to God's prevenient grace, would we be restored to sanctifying grace.
So it is most certainly a merciful provision of God, and therefore an act of divine Providence, that ensures we receive the grace of the sacrament of penance without the matter, and certainly not mere human effort, to those who are currently far away from a priest that they be immediately restored to grace. That should address the first contradiction, otherwise please provide a source that says natural merit without divine aid can avail contrition.
I agree with what you say about the uncertain state, in fact I place emphasis on it, it is similarly uncertain for those baptized by desire, Pope Pius XII teaches this in an Encyclical.
That's why one is advised to go to confession as soon as it is possible for one to do so, and genuinely contrite souls will hasten to do so. That is one of the effects of a true contrition, likewise one of the effects of true baptism of desire will be to ask for baptism and be baptised in water when it is preached to them, even though they were already restored to grace.
All your questions can be answered by analogy.
1. Firstly, about contradictions, do you place your private reasoning above the faith of the Church? If you cannot understand a teaching of the Church, you should submit to the Church as you would submit to Christ ("He who hears you, hears Me") first. There is no real contradiction, of course, but our minds are not always so illumined that their reasoning is perfect. Even so excellent a Doctor as St.Thomas, see the quote in my signature, considered his own reasoning as suspect of ignorance in comparison to the judgment of the Church, which is the judgment of Christ.
2. "The contradiction of Our Lords own command, the contradiction of de fide teaching" This is already answered by St.Thomas. You think the baptism of desire contradicts the baptism of water. That is like saying the doctrine of the Holy Trinity contradicts the doctrine of monotheism. Its unenlightened reasoning.
There can be no real contradiction here. I cited sacred Scripture, baptism is Trinitarian, the three baptisms are one, the water, the blood and the spirit. What is true of the one is true of the other, with regard to grace.
Therefore, it is the grace of the sacrament that is necessary, not the matter, and the grace given through anyone of them suffices.
3. "we are taught from childhood that we must be baptized or we cannot get to heaven"
Yes, firstly two questions. Are you admitting that approved traditional catechisms of the Church cannot contain grave errors and are safe sources for learning the Faith? If yes, you have a great problem in maintaining your position, because all approved catechisms for hundreds of years have taught baptism of desire.
Secondly, do you deny, what the liturgical Tradition of the Church maintains, that the Holy Innocents were baptized by blood?
Third and finally, does being restored to grace by perfect contrition and a sorrow for sins that is only implicit, and even when some sins are forgotten, contradict the express necessity for all Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin after baptism to confess their sins in number and kind for salvation? If there is no contradiction in the one, then there is no contradiction in the other.
The principle is the same and it is a simple one, extraordinary means involve the dispensing of the ordinary means with regard to the matter (whether the water or the confession of sins in number and kind) and the grace of the sacrament is given directly by God without these to those who genuinely love Him for His own sake inspired and moved by His own providential action, not of themselves.
-
I am saying that no one addresses the contradictions that certainly exist. The contradiction of Our Lords own command, the contradiction of de fide teaching and the contradiction between BOD and Divine Providence.
Stubborn, there are exceptions that exist, you know. For instance, the Church teaches that we are obliged to attend Mass every Sunday. But it also states that if you are sick, or if your car breaks down on your way to Mass and it's far for you to walk to Mass, then you're excused.
Another example: the Church teaches that if you die with any sins on your soul, you cannot go straight to Heaven. But the Church also teaches that if you die a martyr, you go straight to Heaven, regardless of what sins you had on your soul.
So do you see how, if you die unbaptized but had the DESIRE to be batpized, you would be saved? There is no contradiction in Church teaching or Divine Providence. And furthermore, BOD was taught by many Saints, by several Popes, and by an Infallible Church Council, whereas very few in Church history have opposed it. Even the Common Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, believed in BOD.
You've made some good arguments, Stubborn. But the facts simply weight heavily in the favor of BOD.
-
Well, Stubborn, I think we are making some progress at least in understanding each other's position better. I agree with most of what you wrote, but this statement surprised me.
Additionally, if we ever did achieve perfect contrition, it is the result of our own immense sorrow for offending God by our sins and what we did, not Divine Providence.
This is simply not true. Please cite some source for this. "Our own immense sorrow" would be purely natural merit, altogether without value. Only if our contrition is supernatural, and in response to God's prevenient grace, would we be restored to sanctifying grace.
The sorrow for our sins comes from graces, these graces are *offered* to us, not deposited in our soul - we can either reject them or accept them. If we accept them, we, not God, afford ourselves of the helps (grace) wholly necessary for contrition - if we reject them - as by our nature we are certainly inclined to do thanks to Original Sin- we will have, of our own free will, rejected the grace which would help lead us to contrition. Either way, our free will allows us to always reject or accept the graces for contrition. So while God does offer or "provide" the help we need, He does not make us perfectly sorry for having offended Him.
When a person who has spent their entire life rejecting these graces is about to die, it is presumed that she will reject those graces on her death bed, not accept them - and if she did accept them it would be of her own free will - even then, she would need to put those graces to work and perform not only an act of perfect contrition, she would also need to desire baptism - these things are something completely foreign to her yet are ignored completely by those who believe in certain versions of BOD.
Above all that, this person is still dieing without ever being baptized, which is the first requirement and the one and only sure way to be absolutely positive of being eligible for entrance into heaven. To enter eternity on a desire is like depending on a "hope and a prayer" and is akin to believing that the road to hell is not paved with good intentions imo.
No, Divine Providence will not make the person have perfect contrition - or even perfect enough contrition. Divine Providence will provide that which has been instituted for a singular purpose, actual Baptism. If the person is sincere and desires baptism sincerely, God will never in a zillion years keep it from her - He will Provide it for her. That is the only reason He instituted it. Divine Providence will never allow her to go without that which is wholly necessary for salvation and which she sincerely desires.
If OTOH God decides to allow us to break the laws He established for our salvation, there is no way we will ever know it while we live.
-
I am saying that no one addresses the contradictions that certainly exist. The contradiction of Our Lords own command, the contradiction of de fide teaching and the contradiction between BOD and Divine Providence.
Stubborn, there are exceptions that exist, you know. For instance, the Church teaches that we are obliged to attend Mass every Sunday. But it also states that if you are sick, or if your car breaks down on your way to Mass and it's far for you to walk to Mass, then you're excused.
These exceptions are not comparable to BOD. IOW, the desire to attend mass when one cannot does not suffice for actually attending mass. If you miss mass, you miss mass - your desire to assist at mass does not equate to you actually assisting at mass - correct me if I am wrong.
Another example: the Church teaches that if you die with any sins on your soul, you cannot go straight to Heaven. But the Church also teaches that if you die a martyr, you go straight to Heaven, regardless of what sins you had on your soul.
So do you see how, if you die unbaptized but had the DESIRE to be batpized, you would be saved? There is no contradiction in Church teaching or Divine Providence. And furthermore, BOD was taught by many Saints, by several Popes, and by an Infallible Church Council, whereas very few in Church history have opposed it. Even the Common Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, believed in BOD.
You've made some good arguments, Stubborn. But the facts simply weight heavily in the favor of BOD.
What facts? You have presented no facts at all. You have presented popular opinions which favor salvation without sacramental baptism.
At some point, I will - - or someone should - start a thread on what the Church teaches that Divine Providence is. Once that doctrine is understood, I think that BOD will lose many believers.
In the mean time, please answer the following - it's a question I asked a few pages ago.........................
Another thing I find impossible to believe is that IF, on his death bed, the ignorant person some how actually did have a desire, let's say he is speaking, and has an explicit desire for a sacrament that he never knew about (?), and in all sincerity desired this thing he knew nothing about (?) but that he knows he needs (?), please, in all seriousness, dictate the words that the person about to die might use at such a time to express this implicit desire explicitly.
IOW, I want to read what is presumed to be going through that ignorant person's mind as though he were speaking aloud, desiring a sacrament he does not know exists.
-
So do you see how, if you die unbaptized but had the DESIRE to be batpized, you would be saved?
SS, can someone who has never heard of Christ or His Church have a desire to be baptized? People who say yes would regard this as an implicit desire.
No. They must desire to be baptized into Christ's Church.
-
So do you see how, if you die unbaptized but had the DESIRE to be batpized, you would be saved?
SS, can someone who has never heard of Christ or His Church have a desire to be baptized? People who say yes would regard this as an implicit desire.
No. They must desire to be baptized into Christ's Church.
You are getting it wrong SS:
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Regeneration and in reference to the Sacraments of Penance (Denziger, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
[Someone who has never heard of Christ or His Church can have a desire to be baptized. That is why they call it "implicit" desire and use terms like "invincibly" ignorant. They must, with a supernatural faith, believe God exists however. The Church just acknowledges that God judges the heart and does not condemn people of good will and who live their lives they way they believe God wants them to live it for what they do not know. If they do not know Christ or His Church through no fault of their own they cannot be blamed for it. This is about as basic as it gets but we like to complicate things.
But how many in the world do not know about Christ or His Church? And even those who don't through no fault of their own are not assured of salvation merely because of their ignorance as can be seen in this posting which summarizes the teaching of the Church on this issue as clearly as it has been summarized. One has to understand that we are not saying ignorance saves but we are also not saying one must be a catechuman or explicitly desire to be baptized into the Catholic Church. The desire can be implicit which means they would be baptized into it if they were aware of the necessity. Some could be invincibly ignorant on the topic but would not be baptized into the Church were the necessity to be made known to them. Only God knows the heart and what they would do under any given circuмstance. The Church merely teaches that God does not punish men for things they are not culpable of.
I sometimes get the impressing that people are so immersed in the unauthoritative teachings of people who over-react to the heresy of universal salvationism to the point of falling into heresy on the opposite side of the spectrum that they either do not read or have their ability to understand what the Church teaches on this topic so colored that they cannot grasp it. ]
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ." (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.) For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Toward the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition " in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, loc. cit., 342)
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution "Singulari quadam," in Denziger, nn. 1641, ff. - also Pope Pius IX in the Encyclical Letter "Quanto conficiamur mœrore" in Denzinger, n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrews, 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to fellowship of His children" (Denz., n. 801)
-
If Catholics who go around arguing in favor of the undefined and non-dogmatic
theoretical hypothesis of so-called baptism of desire would spend half as much
energy on missionary activities by working to convert their own neighbors to the
one true Faith, would the world be any better off?
Why sit around hypothesizing about the possibility of salvation for people who
don't know the Faith and have not been baptized sacramentally (which always
means by water, BTW) when you could be truly helping your ignorant neighbors
to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved?
What good does it do to argue over the salvation of those who most likely do not
know the Faith (because they are not yet at the age of reason or they live in a
remote part of the world where no Catholic missionaries are present) when you
are doing nothing to help your neighbors to know the Faith? In fact, by making
such arguments, you are ACTIVELY PREVENTING your neighbors, because they
are looking for such sophistries and they are waiting for an intellectual nuance
by which they can claim that they don't need to convert in fact, all they need to
do is to have a vague longing for salvation, and it's theirs for the "desire" of it.
You might think you are doing them a favor, but you are actually providing them
with a way to ESCAPE salvation.
Missionaries, evangelists and catechism teachers who have the most sincere
intention to spread the Faith might think they are doing someone a favor by
answering questions in favor of so-called baptism of desire (which should not
be called "baptism" of whatever, because it is not a sacrament, and baptism is
a sacrament), but what I see is people losing their interest in being Catholic
because they get the impression that it's okay to not be Catholic, and that starts
with thinking that it's okay if you're not baptized, because you can be saved
anyway.
...Or, that whether you're Catholic or not isn't important, so why bother?
That was the principle point of Vatican II: an implicit denial of the defined dogma
that outside the Church there is no salvation. They could not literally say that
because it would be an obvious heresy and it would never have passed muster at
an ecuмenical council. So they did a sneaky, half-compromised sophistry instead,
and Catholics all over the world dutifully leaped to the false conclusion on their
own. And their local pastors didn't bother to correct them because it would not
be "ecuмenical" (according to the new, false ecuмenism).
-
Hey LOT,
You are very good at posting things in-depth, I'd like to see you start a thread on what the Church teaches about Divine Providence if you get a chance.
-
It seems to me that the promotion of so-called baptism of desire, combined with
the deadly error of "salvation outside the Church" was a lethal combination. One
or the other, alone, would not be so potent and destructive, but both together at
the same time was quite deadly.
It's a lot like vernacularization of the liturgy and liturgical innovation. Taken
alone, it would not have been so bad, that is, making the Mass in German, French,
English, Italian, Spanish, Korean, Hindi (any one of some 200 dialects), Japanese,
Russian, etc., would not have been so terrible if that was all it was, provided that
integrity of the rubrics, and adherence to all the true meanings of the Latin would
be preserved. Or, that keeping the Mass in Latin, and allowing for a few regional
innovations in prayers or parts of the Mass outside of the canon, might not have
been so terrible. But when you combine vernacular language with practically
unrestricted innovation consequent to the interminable 'options' of the Novus Ordo
liturgy, you have a formula for absolute destruction of the Mass.
Also, you put all 4 of these errors into practice all at the same time (combined
with even more changes of different kinds) and you get the Vatican II revolution.
So, whether you want to believe it or not, when you go around arguing in favor
of so-called baptism of desire (which is not a sacrament) you are doing the devil's
work. You probably don't intend it that way, but the devil doesn't care about your
intentions, so long as he can use your words to his advantage.
I have been in several groups of students, and have heard the instructor answer
the question, "Is baptism of desire a sacrament?" and have heard the answer and
seen the reaction: "No, baptism of desire is not a sacrament." And the students
are predictably shocked. You see, they have heard the phrase, "baptism of
desire" so often that they have presumed that it is a sacrament. Why? Because,
Baptism is a sacrament. So, why call a thing "baptism of desire" when it is not a
sacrament? It's like saying "baptism but not baptism."
It is a weak accommodation of the infamous denial of the principle of non-
contradiction. Something can be baptism AND not baptism at the same time.
Even the pagan, ancient Greeks knew that to deny the principle of
non-contradiction was one and the same thing as insanity.
-
Hey LOT,
You are very good at posting things in-depth, I'd like to see you start a thread on what the Church teaches about Divine Providence if you get a chance.
Thank you very much.
God knows what we are going to do before we do it, and we have free-will.
We are predestined to our final destination but we freely choose to go where we end up. Each of us, no matter where our destination lies, has been given the capability of being saved and a fair chance.
Calvin had a fatalistic look at predestination to the exclusion of free-will.
God knows what we are going to do before we do it from now until the moment on death and where that will lead, be we do not. His knowing this is based upon giving us free-will and the capacity to be saved if we were to ultimately make the right choices. He knew when He created us that we would be able to be saved if we made the correct choices we were capable of making but did not make. Just because He knew we would ultimately shun His grace is not the same as saying we had free-will and the capacity to be saved.
Catholics have a "both and" view of thing rather than the embracing of one truth to the exclusion of the other as is seen in EENS/BOB-D. We believe in predestination AND free-will. God can't help knowing how we will use that free-will ahead of time.
There is a certain mystery to it that we must bow too, for if we knew as much as God or understood things as clearly as God does then He wouldn't be God or there would be more than one God, Him and those who know as much as He does.
This is true with "faith and works" as well. We do not pit one against the other, they fit together.
-
If Catholics who go around arguing in favor of the undefined and non-dogmatic
theoretical hypothesis of so-called baptism of desire would spend half as much
energy on missionary activities by working to convert their own neighbors to the
one true Faith, would the world be any better off?
Why sit around hypothesizing about the possibility of salvation for people who
don't know the Faith and have not been baptized sacramentally (which always
means by water, BTW) when you could be truly helping your ignorant neighbors
to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved?
What good does it do to argue over the salvation of those who most likely do not
know the Faith (because they are not yet at the age of reason or they live in a
remote part of the world where no Catholic missionaries are present) when you
are doing nothing to help your neighbors to know the Faith? In fact, by making
such arguments, you are ACTIVELY PREVENTING your neighbors, because they
are looking for such sophistries and they are waiting for an intellectual nuance
by which they can claim that they don't need to convert in fact, all they need to
do is to have a vague longing for salvation, and it's theirs for the "desire" of it.
You might think you are doing them a favor, but you are actually providing them
with a way to ESCAPE salvation.
Missionaries, evangelists and catechism teachers who have the most sincere
intention to spread the Faith might think they are doing someone a favor by
answering questions in favor of so-called baptism of desire (which should not
be called "baptism" of whatever, because it is not a sacrament, and baptism is
a sacrament), but what I see is people losing their interest in being Catholic
because they get the impression that it's okay to not be Catholic, and that starts
with thinking that it's okay if you're not baptized, because you can be saved
anyway.
...Or, that whether you're Catholic or not isn't important, so why bother?
That was the principle point of Vatican II: an implicit denial of the defined dogma
that outside the Church there is no salvation. They could not literally say that
because it would be an obvious heresy and it would never have passed muster at
an ecuмenical council. So they did a sneaky, half-compromised sophistry instead,
and Catholics all over the world dutifully leaped to the false conclusion on their
own. And their local pastors didn't bother to correct them because it would not
be "ecuмenical" (according to the new, false ecuмenism).
As I say, people on this thread do not understand the teaching or don't want to, unless it is Thomas Aquinas and all those quoted above that don't grasp it.