Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire Advocates: Is faith in the Sacrament required for BoD?  (Read 9019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Nice to see Ladislaus you are softening toward the PROPER Definition of BOD.

I've always been soft of those who simply believe in BoD for catechumens and are not BoD zealots, as I have explained.  Of course, so far I've only run into about 2-3 of these.  I have always tried to shift the debate toward whether or not "Hindus in Tibet" and such can be saved and therefore in the Church.  I welcomed a poster named Arvinger as an ally on this issue even though he believed in BoD for catechumens ... since he always fought to uphold Traditional ecclesiology, rather than undermining it at every turn.

As I told him, if you want to follow the Church Doctors on this issue, then what can I say?  Even if I respectfully disagree with them, I can't really fault someone in preferring the opinions of St. Thomas, St. Robert, and St. Alphonsus.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Quote
My make-believe story; you either misread or wanted to misread!  The story clearly speaks of two learning the faith.  One received the Sacrament,
Great.  The first person used his free will to accept the actual graces necessary to embrace the Faith and Baptism.
.

Quote
the other only the desire through no fault of his own was killed before the Sacrament was administered.
Ha, ha.  Except for ѕυιcιdє and stupidity (i.e. taking a selfie on the edge of a cliff, slipping and falling to one's death accidentally), everyone dies "through no fault of his own".
.
Who allowed person #2 to die before reception of Baptism?  God.
Who knew, from all eternity, when person #2 was going to die?  God.
Who is the only person who can read hearts, and who truly knows if person #2 desired to be baptized?  God.
Can you, me or anyone swear on a bible and say we knew, with 100% clarity, that person #2 wanted to be baptized?  No.
Therefore, who stopped person #2's life, being able to read his heart, and did so with full, complete, absolute knowledge?  God.
.
Are you questioning God's motives and knowledge?  Yes.
Should you repent of this sin?  Yes.
Should you beg for a greater faith in God's all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving Providential care and His all-encompassing desire that all men be saved?  Yes x 1,000,000.
.

Quote
Who was saved Pax Vobis,  pick one:   Both or only the one who received the Sacrament or none?

Who was saved?  I have no idea.  I can't read hearts.  All I know is who was baptized at the time of death.  Person 1 was baptized, so they had the opportunity to be saved.  Person 2 was not baptized, so they were definitely not saved.  They could have made it to Limbo and had a natural happiness.  Or, they were damned for privately rejecting baptism; only God knows.
.
Who was a member of the Church when they died?  Person 1 only.
.

Quote
This story illustrates how the Church teaches BOD.  The Church does NOT teach BOD is a substitute for the Sacrament, as if it could even apply if death is not carried out.

This story illustrates your own, silly, theological fantasy.  There is no catechism, book, council, papal docuмent or manual which explains the answer to your story.  If you presented your story to 100 other pro-BOD friends, you would get 100 different answers because nothing about BOD details are explained anywhere.  So there's no uniform agreement on what it is, or how it works.  If there was, then you wouldn't have to make up a story; you could just quote pages from a church-approved book.


I welcomed a poster named Arvinger as an ally on this issue even though he believed in BoD for catechumens ... since he always fought to uphold Traditional ecclesiology, rather than undermining it at every turn.
In all of my life I only have met one like your Arvinger. AND I have never met ONE that started a BOD thread that was not an implicit faither, no matter how many times they denied it. Their mindset is that of Fr. Cekada (read below), and because of that mindset, BOD of the catechumen is not enough because it only involves, well,  a catechumen, that's nothing, they must include all "nice" people in all religions. There is not ONE real Thomist/ Ligouri/Bellarmie BODer on CI that posts in these threads. An example of a false BODer is XavierSem, who has been whittled down to saying that God can convert a Muslim, Hindu Buddhist etc. by a miracle, by revealing Himself to the non-Catholic one microsecond before he dies. That is XavierSem's  way of saving the non-catechumen, he's just winging it, it has nothing to do with St. Thomas or any saint.

Quote
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”




The SSPV, The Roman Catholic,  Fall 2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal members of the Church at the moment of death.  It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
Does anyone have access to the original source for this quote?  I see it copied and pasted a lot but I've never seen the original source.  I tried googling for it, but came up emptyhanded (except for other places where the quote is provided by itself).



Now in your own words, can you please explain Myrna, why God, after giving the believer all the grace and knowledge necessary in order to lead him right to the very font that God Himself instituted as being required for our salvation, denied the believer this requirement and did not wait another 2 minutes before taking the believer?



Your story is a shining example, explicitly demonstrating two things at the same time, first, how *with* Divine Providence a BOD can never happen, (by the providence of God the doubter was baptized), and second, *without* God's Providence, the sacrament can never happen (as was the case of the believer).  
It wasn't necessary because God knew the Believer would be saved via BOD anyway, and also God wanted you Stubborn to think about the situation presented, which is what you did!