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 6884 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46904
  • Reputation: +27772/-5163
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It works on the same principle as BOD properly taught is my understanding.
    Rare as is BOD these days but effective when properly given.  Meaning both the recipient is in need because death is imminent - both are in need of the Sacrament because of either mortal sin or original sin - both MUST BE GRACED WITH PERFECT LOVE - BOTH UNDERSTANDS THAT the SACRAMENT is required at a later time if death did not occur.

    I guess I still don't understand.  In the case of General Absolution, the Sacrament is still being conferred in re, with the only difference being that the penitent must still confess any unconfessed mortal sins at the next possible occasion.  It's just as if a penitent accidentally forgot to mention some sin.  In that case, the Sacrament still happens, and the person is restored to grace, even though not all sins were confessed.  Or in the case of a dying person who can't talk.  In all those situations, the Sacrament is still happening.  Necessity only serves to defer the obligation of confessing every sin right there and then.  And, of course, if the priest pronounced a general absolution, and there was a mixed group, the Sacrament would only be effective toward those who were Catholics and who had the right dispositions for Confession at the time the words were pronounced.


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3629/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I guess I still don't understand.  In the case of General Absolution, the Sacrament is still being conferred in re, with the only difference being that the penitent must still confess any unconfessed mortal sins at the next possible occasion.  It's just as if a penitent accidentally forgot to mention some sin.  In that case, the Sacrament still happens, and the person is restored to grace, even though not all sins were confessed.  Or in the case of a dying person who can't talk.  In all those situations, the Sacrament is still happening.  Necessity only serves to defer the obligation of confessing every sin right there and then.  And, of course, if the priest pronounced a general absolution, and there was a mixed group, the Sacrament would only be effective toward those who were Catholics and who had the right dispositions for Confession at the time the words were pronounced.

    That thought also came to my mind; however, the penitent must still go to the actual SACRAMENT if they survived, which begs the question; was it the sacrament to the fullest? Just as BOD is not a Sacrament, it suffices if death occurs, as does General absolution.  The Principle is the same I believe.


    Thank you for your reply, now let's wait and see what Pax comes up with since his nominal response indicates the difference is explained in Trent.


    The happening of the Sacrament/or desire for it is limited, (Speaking of General absolution) i.e. some tragedy as the sinking of the Titanic. Of course would only apply to Catholics, not infidels who might have been in said group.  
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3629/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • God fulfills, without the need for BOD because nothing is impossible with God.  Suggesting that God must break the water and Holy Spirit rule because someone might die on Him is absurd.  
    ABSOLUTELY!
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46904
    • Reputation: +27772/-5163
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That thought also came to my mind; however, the penitent must still go to the actual SACRAMENT if they survived, which begs the question; was it the sacrament to the fullest?

    Well, as I said, it's similar to the scenario where a penitent perhaps forgot to mention a mortal sin (not deliberately withholding).  There's a valid absolution, so the Sacrament was in fact confected.  So I think this is not quite the same thing as BoD.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12414
    • Reputation: +7899/-2448
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    That thought also came to my mind; however, the penitent must still go to the actual SACRAMENT if they survived, which begs the question; was it the sacrament to the fullest? Just as BOD is not a Sacrament, it suffices if death occurs,

    .
    Trent does not say, teach or imply that a BOD'er who dies before reception of ACTUAL baptism, is saved.  Trent only says that those who vow to receive baptism, can get a "head start" on being in a state of grace.  Further, Trent says that the SACRAMENT is necessary for heaven.  BOD isn't a sacrament, so it cannot provide heaven.  Forget catechisms, they are not infallible.  The pope does not write catechisms.  They can be tampered with and many have been proven to have deliberate mis-translations.
    .
    God does not create rules/doctrine in order to break them.  This would be a destruction if His integrity, authority and respect.  “Oh what kind of God makes rules that can’t be followed and He has to break them?”, pagans would say.  It would destroy the fabric of Catholicism.  It would destroy our respect for God.
    .
    This also applies to BOD.  The graces of justification ONLY work for those who vow/promise to receive the sacrament.  Those that 1) are unable to, or 2) made an insincere promise do NOT get the graces.  
    .
    Those that die before reception of the sacrament, we can (and must) say that 1) they were not sincere or 2) God worked a miracle to provide water baptism that we didn’t see or weren’t there.
    .
    To say that a person dies before baptism and goes to heave due to BOD is heresy and accuses God of changing the rules.  It accuses God of lying to us, and makes doctrine arbitrary because God changes whatever, whenever.
    .
    The proper catholic explanation is that God created the rules of the sacraments.  God is unchanging and eternal, so His rules for grace and holiness are unchanging and eternal.  If one can not fulfill the rules humanly, God will work a miracle to fulfill the rules.  He does not suspend or alter the rules.  In a sense, He’s not allowed.  He cannot deceive.  
    .
    This is why those who try to explain BOD outside of the rules are utterly confused and never agree.  Because anything not of God leads to confusion.


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3629/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, as I said, it's similar to the scenario where a penitent perhaps forgot to mention a mortal sin (not deliberately withholding).  There's a valid absolution, so the Sacrament was in fact confected.  So I think this is not quite the same thing as BoD.

    The problem with your reply is, forgetting to mention a mortal sin, was not the purpose for providing General absolution.  Forgetting to mention a mortal sin, one needs to get back into the confessional, and explain to the priest they forgot to mention yada yada.   In the meantime, if the penitent truly forgot and dies before he/she got back into the confessional box, the Mercy of God, ( the forgotten sin would be forgiven by God) As I was taught back in the day, my Catholic school prior to VII.
    It might help if you looked up Canons below yourself: 

     
    What, then, is the purpose of general absolution, which involves the granting of absolution to a group without the priest having heard each person’s individual confession of sins? Canon 961.1 explains that there are two situations when it may properly be used.

    The first (c. 961.1 n.1) obtains when danger of death threatens, and there is insufficient time for the available priest(s) to hear the confessions of everyone present. The most obvious situation in which this might happen is a time of war. Imagine, for example, that Sunday Mass is being celebrated in a parish church that is more or less crowded with parishioners. Suddenly, planes are heard overhead, and bσɱbs begin to fall. It is quite possible that the church may be hit and everyone inside killed in a matter of moments. At that point, the celebrant of the Mass would rightly move to give general absolution quickly to the entire congregation.

    The second situation (c. 961.1 n.2) pertains to circuмstances which are less extreme. It involves a “grave necessity,” described as a large number of penitents and an insufficient number of available confessors, such that there is no time to hear everyone’s confession, and the faithful would be deprived of the grace of the sacrament for a lengthy period of time.

    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14785
    • Reputation: +6105/-913
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, as I said, it's similar to the scenario where a penitent perhaps forgot to mention a mortal sin (not deliberately withholding).  There's a valid absolution, so the Sacrament was in fact confected.  So I think this is not quite the same thing as BoD.
    Myrna is trying to exemplify General Absolution, something the Church actually [rarely] does, as grounds to promote a BOD, which is something the Church actually cannot ever do, or even partake of.   
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3629/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pax quote
    Quote
    Those that die before reception of the sacrament, we can (and must) say that 1) they were not sincere or 2) God worked a miracle to provide water baptism that we didn’t see or weren’t there.

    Perhaps that is what He did, resulting in the dying soul being saved.   It doesn't matter how He, did it, as long as God saves the person who was GRACED WITH PERFECT LOVE, but in human eyes was not water Baptised but in God's Eyes He was.  The Mercy of God wins again as always. 
     
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/


    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ABSOLUTELY!
    Ok we're getting somewhere. Baptism is necessary for salvation. God doesn't need to resort to some non baptism, a mythical "baptism by desire", because God is God, which means He can provide the real deal, Baptism, for otherwise impossible circuмstances, even if He has to perform a miracle where He decides to do it. This is not BOD, it's a miraculous Baptism, and water actually flows on them, or the person cannot be saved. 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12414
    • Reputation: +7899/-2448
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Perhaps that is what He did, resulting in the dying soul being saved.   It doesn't matter how He, did it, as long as God saves the person who was GRACED WITH PERFECT LOVE, but in human eyes was not water Baptised but in God's Eyes He was.
    No, that's heresy.  Trent teaches infallibly that "true and natural water" is necessary for baptism.  Trent says that these words are "not a metaphor" but reality.
    .
    Water matters because all sacraments are part spiritual, part natural.  Water + the Holy Ghost.
    .
    You MUST explain salvation based on doctrine.  If you are going to create "what if" scenarios, then you create them involving water and miracles.  You don't ignore doctrine (i.e. water) and say it's a miracle.  God does not contradict Himself.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3629/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: Baptism of Desire Advocates: Is faith in the Sacrament required for BoD?
    « Reply #100 on: March 15, 2021, 02:58:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Myrna is trying to exemplify General Absolution, something the Church actually [rarely] does, as grounds to promote a BOD, which is something the Church actually cannot ever do, or even partake of.  
    So Stubborn it seems you do WANT to deny General Absolution (rarely) BUT POSSIBLE, RIGHT?  Same principle as BOD, you want so much to deny General absolution you add the world RARELY!  
    The bottom line Stubborn is, if it was never ever needed it wouldn't be in the Canon.  The age we live in today, we might need General Absolution more than you imagine.  
    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6273
    • Reputation: +3629/-347
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: Baptism of Desire Advocates: Is faith in the Sacrament required for BoD?
    « Reply #101 on: March 15, 2021, 02:59:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, that's heresy.  Trent teaches infallibly that "true and natural water" is necessary for baptism.  Trent says that these words are "not a metaphor" but reality.
    .
    Water matters because all sacraments are part spiritual, part natural.  Water + the Holy Ghost.
    .
    You MUST explain salvation based on doctrine.  If you are going to create "what if" scenarios, then you create them involving water and miracles.  You don't ignore doctrine (i.e. water) and say it's a miracle.  God does not contradict Himself.
    Pax read your post, you are the one who created that scenario, the miracle.  Not I!

    Your reply #94 above

    Please pray for my soul.
    R.I.P. 8/17/22

    My new blog @ https://myforever.blog/blog/

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12414
    • Reputation: +7899/-2448
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire Advocates: Is faith in the Sacrament required for BoD?
    « Reply #102 on: March 15, 2021, 03:13:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Keep up, Myrna.  I'm talking about your "what if" where the believer died before baptism.  Either 1) he wasn't a believer and wasn't saved because God read his heart and he wasn't sincere.  Or 2) God worked a miracle and the believer was baptized WITH WATER before death.
    .
    We cannot say that an unbaptized person gains heaven.  We can say that the unbaptized, justified goes to Limbo only.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14785
    • Reputation: +6105/-913
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptism of Desire Advocates: Is faith in the Sacrament required for BoD?
    « Reply #103 on: March 15, 2021, 04:45:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So Stubborn it seems you do WANT to deny General Absolution (rarely) BUT POSSIBLE, RIGHT?  Same principle as BOD, you want so much to deny General absolution you add the world RARELY!  
    The bottom line Stubborn is, if it was never ever needed it wouldn't be in the Canon.  The age we live in today, we might need General Absolution more than you imagine.  
    You either missed the moral of what I wrote, or you agree with it - which is it? Allow me to expand what I said a bit to make it a bit more obvious......

    I said: "Myrna is trying to exemplify General Absolution, something the Church, (which is Christ) actually [rarely] does, as grounds to promote a BOD, which is something the Church, (which is Christ) actually cannot ever do, or even partake of".

    Which is to say God plays no part whatsoever in a BOD, because if He did, a BOD could never happen. See what I mean now?
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11528
    • Reputation: +6476/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Baptism of Desire Advocates: Is faith in the Sacrament required for BoD?
    « Reply #104 on: March 15, 2021, 04:58:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm looking into the St. Augustine "retraction" of BOD.

    After about 15 minutes of doing so, let me hastily add: perhaps the "retraction" of BOD by St. Augustine is a "too easy assumption."
    It appears to me that we need to be on guard when assuming the accuracy of quotes/accusations.  I think I always was, but more so now.