Author Topic: Baptism of Desire (Read 6871 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:40:09 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

Quote from: Stubborn

so therefore we are free to *not* believe it.

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2012, 05:31:39 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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,

Quote

(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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2012, 07:58:57 AM »

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.

Nishant · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2012, 12:24:23 PM »

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.

Quote

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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #34 on:** October 14, 2012, 02:44:56 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #35 on:** October 14, 2012, 04:41:59 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote
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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** October 14, 2012, 05:42:30 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Stubborn
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.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #37 on:** October 14, 2012, 08:32:08 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2012, 07:00:55 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Hermenegild
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
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)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #39 on:** October 15, 2012, 07:48:54 AM »

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).

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** October 15, 2012, 07:49:45 AM »

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.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #41 on:** October 15, 2012, 08:15:28 AM »

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #42 on:** October 15, 2012, 08:47:14 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #43 on:** October 15, 2012, 08:48:05 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

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.