Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 34505 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #30 on:** February 21, 2021, 07:09:12 AM »

If you read those Church Fathers who supported BOB, they said that blood replaced the water necessary for the sacrament while angels said the sacramental form. BOD lacks any sensory element and is self-given - both at odds with sacramental theology.
.
The 2nd group of people you mention were just parroting St Augustine, who argued both sides. And that’s 7 people in 700 yrs...quite a small number.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #31 on:** February 21, 2021, 07:56:36 AM »

Yes, Fr. Cekada clearly proves BOD is at least theologically certain Catholic Doctrine, and thus an objective mortal sin to publicly deny.

Here is Pope Bl. Pius IX in Tuas Libenter: "2879 Dz 1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." From: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dxm.htm

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me (1) A Theology Manual, post Trent, that says BOD is disputed. (2) Any Church Doctor in the whole last millenium that denies BOD, particularly after Pope Innocent III. St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure and St. Catherine all teach it.

Syllogism:

Major: Catholic Theologians post Trent unanimously say that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Minor: What Theologians unanimously teach as having been taught by the Church is guaranteed by the OUM.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church infallibly guarantees BOD is true.

With regard to the alleged counter-example proposed, how many ever said "The Church teaches unbaptized infants suffer fire in hell"? Neither did the Magisterium or any Pope endorse this rigorist opinion. Some Fathers, especially St. Augustine, expressed their personal opinion on the matter. But the Church ruled otherwise and closed the question in teaching, just as St. Thomas had said, that little infants who lack Baptism suffer only the supernatural privation of the beatific vision, and enjoy perfect natural happiness in limbo. Limbo actually is a perfect example of Church doctrine being closed by the Magisterium, in opposition to the erroneous views of 1 or 2 Fathers.

Just like the Church taught Limbo, She also clearly taught BOD. Catechisms have taught Limbo to the Faithful and the same Catechisms have also taught BOD. It is the ruling of the Church, in closing the question, that obliges us to assent to the Catholic Doctrine of BOD.

Major: Catechisms approved by the Church for centuries and used by Bishops throughout the world have taught BOD as divinely revealed Church Teaching.
Minor: But the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church cannot teach error for centuries in what it proposes as divinely revealed Church Teaching.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church once more shows us that BOD is divinely revealed Church Teaching.

There is a final consideration from the manner in which the Popes have authorized St. Alphonsus' writings, the Theologia Moralis where he defines and teaches BOD in particular, as safe for any Catholic to follow - even while not knowing the reason whatsoever behind it.

From: https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html

Major: Popes have said St. Alphonsus can be safely followed in what the Doctor taught in Theologia Moralis.
Minor: St. Alphonsus teaches that Souls are saved by BOD is de fide because of Trent in Theologia Moralis.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Catholics - even without knowing reasons - can safely teach BOD is de fide dogma.

I personally usually say "BOD is Catholic Doctrine" rather than "BOD is Catholic Dogma" but the latter can be safely said, per the Popes.

There is no chance that the Church will ever condemn BOD. BOD is irreformable Catholic Doctrine at minimum. St. Alphonsus also teaches explicit faith in the same Theologia Moralis, and all Catholics can also safely follow him in that. The Church has spoken.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:01:38 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 21, 2021, 07:09:12 AM

If you read those Church Fathers who supported BOB, they said that blood replaced the water necessary for the sacrament while angels said the sacramental form. BOD lacks any sensory element and is self-given - both at odds with sacramental theology.
.
The 2nd group of people you mention were just parroting St Augustine, who argued both sides. And that’s 7 people in 700 yrs...quite a small number.

This is very important, since the BoDers always deliberately conflate the BoB Fathers with those (few if any) Fathers who held BoD ... for a time. St. Augustine early on speculatively floated BoD, but then forcefully retracted it during his anti-Pelagian years. St. Ambrose's reference to Valentinian is completely ambiguous, and St Ambrose elsewhere denies the possibility of salvation even for good catechumens ... which suggests that his oration had nothing to do with BoD. And that's IT. That is ALL the "evidence" for BoD.

And you are absolutely correct that the Church Fathers who believed in BoB actually believed that it was an alternative mode of administering the SACRAMENT. St. Cyprian actually called it a Sacrament, and at one point said that the angels pronounced the words of the form (while the martyr's blood was the matter).

And then there's this:
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

Quote

In addition to these influences on the early schoolmen in Paris, there was the question, current at the time, as to the authorship of a fifth century theological manual, which specifically denied baptism of desire. It was De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus. In chapter 74 we find the curious profession: “We believe that only the baptized are on the road of salvation. We believe that no catechumen has life everlasting, although he has died in good works, excepting martyrdom, in which all the sacred elements (sacraments) of Baptism are contained.” It was commonly believed, until the thirteenth century, that Saint Augustine was the author of this theological work. Saint Thomas (+1274) challenged the belief in his Commentary on the first chapter of Matthew (Catena Aurea). The Angelic Doctor denied Augustine’s authorship, attributing the work, rather, to a semi-Pelagian named Gennadius of Marseilles. But, on the other hand, when Peter Lombard was composing his Book of Sentences, he referred to the work as Augustine’s in several places. (Lib. II, dist. 35, cap. “Quocirca”; Lib. III, dist. 1, cap. “Diligenter”; Lib IV, dist. 12, cap. “Institutum.”)

This manual, which some attributed to St. Augustine, but was certainly from his time period, clearly states that the "sacred elements" of Baptism are there in BoB. Consequently, they did not consider it an exception to the necessity of Baptism.

St. Augustine, the only real "authority" behind BoD, retracted it during his later, more mature, years. St. Fulgentius, his discipline, explicitly rejected it. Then we have the fifth-century manual above which clearly affirms that "no catchumen has life everlasting, although he has died in good works." St. Ambrose, BTW, taught the same thing in his treatise on the Sacraments.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:04:51 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 21, 2021, 07:56:36 AM

Yes, Fr. Cekada clearly proves BOD is at least theologically certain Catholic Doctrine, and thus an objective mortal sin to publicly deny.

Tell that to the SIXTEEN (by my count) out of 25 theologians he surveyed who did NOT hold that it was "at least theologically certain." They evidently don't agree with Fr. Cekada's "proofs".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:09:17 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 21, 2021, 07:56:36 AM

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me (1) A Theology Manual, post Trent, that says BOD is disputed. (2) Any Church Doctor in the whole last millenium that denies BOD, particularly after Pope Innocent III. St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure and St. Catherine all teach it.

Nobody cares what YOU are "waiting for". For 700 years every theologian held to St. Augustine's erroneous opinion that was later rejected by the Church ... thanks to Abelard (who also denied BoD).

We have only 25 theologians here who mention the notion at all, most of them in passing, so that it's evident they did not personally research the subject but were merely repeating the opinion of St. Thomas.

As pointed out, the MAJORITY of them do NOT hold that it's "at least theologically certain" ... which they WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE TO DO if they believed it was taught by Trent.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:15:35 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 21, 2021, 07:56:36 AM

Syllogism:

Major: Catholic Theologians post Trent unanimously say that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire.
Minor: What Theologians unanimously teach as having been taught by the Church is guaranteed by the OUM.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church infallibly guarantees BOD is true.

This syllogism, like all of your syllogisms, is total crap. As pointed out, the MAJORITY of the post-Tridentine theologians cited by Fr. Cekada do NOT hold that it's "at least theologically certain" ... which they would have to do if they felt it was taught by Trent. Consequently, the MAJORITY of theologians do not believe that Trent taught it.

I completely reject the minor, which you pulled out of your ass ... or Fr. Cekada's (BTW, do you agree with his dogmatic sedevacantism ... since you promote him as an authority here?) Non-condemnation by the church has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH OUM. Vatican I's defintion of OUM says that something has to be held by the Church ... always and everywhere ... AS DIVINELY REVEALED (i.e. de fide) and we see that only SEVEN of the TWENTY-FIVE theologians cited by Cekada hold this.

YOU ADMITTED on another thread that all theologians universally held the opinion of St. Augustine that unbaptized infants go to hell, and that this opinion was later rejected by the Church. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR MINOR? Answer: it's garbage made up out of thin air.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:20:37 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 21, 2021, 07:56:36 AM

Major: Popes have said St. Alphonsus can be safely followed in what the Doctor taught in Theologia Moralis.
Minor: St. Alphonsus teaches that Souls are saved by BOD is de fide because of Trent in Theologia Moralis.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Catholics - even without knowing reasons - can safely teach BOD is de fide dogma.

Yes, Xavier, you are free to "TEACH" that it's de fide, but your teaching doesn't mean squat. So carry on "teaching". Correct, the Church has never condemned the opinion of some theologians that it's de fide. Nor, however, has it condemned the teaching of those theologians who DON'T hold that it's de fide ... which is actually most of them by Father Cekada's own survey.

Not only is BoD not de fide but I hold that it's at the very most an unproven (and unprovable) piece of speculative theology, which derived from emotional considerations rather than from theological premises, and I agree with St. Augustine that it's very likely at-least-semi-Pelagian error. I also agree with the other 5 or 6 Fathers who rejected BoD, and I agree with that 5th-century manual as well.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:25:04 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 21, 2021, 07:56:36 AM

Major: Catechisms approved by the Church for centuries and used by Bishops throughout the world have taught BOD as divinely revealed Church Teaching.
Minor: But the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church cannot teach error for centuries in what it proposes as divinely revealed Church Teaching.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church once more shows us that BOD is divinely revealed Church Teaching.

Your major is more bovine excrement. I don't know of any catechism which teaches that BoD is "divinely revealed". In, fact only SEVEN out of TWENTY-FIVE post-Tridentine theologians would agree with that ... so, it's a minority opinion.

You skip a step also in your syllogism. It's obvious you haven't taken a course in logic yet despite attempting syllogisms.

That step is that catechisms are the OUM ... which I categorically reject. On this point, the Dimonds have cited several authorities to that effect, so please look them up.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:30:33 AM »

Xavier, over and over you demonstrate bad will when it comes to this issue ... and others.

You're a very emotional person, which is why I called you XavierFem for a while, with itchy ears for private revelation, and this bleeds over into major logical errors in your syllogisms and other arguments. As emotional as you are, you really aren't suited to doing actual theology.

Fr. Cekada admitted his own emotional reason for wanting to believe in BoD, and it is these very same emotional reasons that are behind ALL proponents of BoD ... except for a few who just parroted it back without fully studying the question.

Those with open minds and sincerely seeking the truth, once they actually dig into and study the question, come away with the same conclusion, that BoD is a piece of speculative theology that has been tolerated by the Church. I think that this is very clear, and the Dimonds cross the line by considering to be formal heretics those who believe in even a BoD for catechumens.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #39 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:38:22 AM »

LOL. It is obvious the Dimonds have confused you on the matter. The Dimonds believe and said that Pope St. Pius X taught heresy in his Catechism. Consistent with their own principles, they should declare him a heretic, and the Papacy vacant since his time. Sorry, but I won't be looking to the Dimonds for much of anything. Regarding what I said about the OUM, I would have thought it was obvious.

Here is Adolphe Tanqueray: "Tanquerey, The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959, pp. 176-182.

"290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.

I'll get back to the rest later. Btw, here's a Catechism that teaches BOD is divinely revealed, and the Church is certain it can save us.

"Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching."

From: http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

Edit: Just saw your last post. Going back to lying, are you Liarslaus? You once conceded Baptism of Desire, but had no stability.

Catholics who have learnt sacred theology well are not "tossed about by every wind of doctrine" in matters decided by the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:40:50 AM »

Here's a better way to infer which theologians in Father Cekada's list believe Trent taught BoD. Which of them assign a higher theological note to BoD than BoB (since BoB was held by more Fathers)?

Answer: NINE

NINE of the TWENTY-FIVE (by my count) assign a HIGHER theological note to BoD than to BoB, and we can infer that it's because of their belief that Trent taught it.

So we can infer that the majority of them do NOT believe it was taught by Trent.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #41 on:** February 21, 2021, 12:23:28 PM »

Here is a real example of a strict believer in BOD of the catechumen, CI member Mirari Vos, a person who limits his belief to the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. ( In bold are just my additions whether red or black). If he were to give his answers to a personal who was grieving the death of a non-Catholic relative and asked what was the fate of his relative, Mirari Vos's answers would be proper Catholic answers. The second separate quote at the bottom is what XavierSem really believes, that is the difference between a real BODer like Mirari Vos, and a false BODer like XavierSem. Like the difference between a Bald Eagle and a Vulture. That is why you do not see any strict BODers starting threads on CI, and you'll see the false BODers like XvavierSem never stop creating threads and stirring up debates with their chaff. (Chaff - is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminum, which swamps the screen with multiple returns to where the plane can't be identified.)

Quote from: Mirari Vos on Yesterday at 07:21:32 AM

Quote

Thank you. Here is the way I see it: Anyone who dies outside the visible unity of the Church, with the exception of a catechumen, is considered lost. This is reflected by the Church’s canon law (reflected in the Canon Law of 1917, but before that, for 1917 years, catechumens could not be given Catholic burials) . Only God knows the ultimate fate of those who die. We don’t know who was secretly baptized and we can’t read men’s hearts and who made an act of perfect contrition before he expired. This is why we can’t make an absolute judgment, but we can presume that they are lost. (secretly baptized AND made a perfect act of contrition, all true and a proper Catholic response, that even I would make, and I do not believe in BOD)

Quote

In the case of the Protestant, who was validly baptized, we can hold out the remote hope that they repented and made an act of perfect contrition before they died (Catholic response, that even I would make) . In the case of the unbaptised person who is dying (not a catechumen), is it possible that they asked a nurse to baptize them? (Catholic response, that even I would make) Of course. (Did this ever had happen? Possibly. Does it happen often? Obviously no. (This is quite common, and history tells us so, many real examples )

Quote

How about the case of a Jew who was secretly learning the catechism? Wouldn’t he be considered a catechumen? (Yes, but you believe he would receive BOD, I would say he may been unknowingly baptized a t birth, or he could have been baptized by anyone before death) How extremely rare would this be? How about the Protestant who was studying Catholicism and was convinced of it’s truth? You could say that God doesn’t work that way, but ultimately we don’t know since God’s ways are not our ways (but he has infallible taught us exactly what we need to do to be saved, be a baptized Catholic with no mortal sin on your soul at death and you will be saved). Also, it seems to me that one important reason the Church does not allow ecclesiastical burials for those who die outside the Church (with the exception of catechumen who dies before they are baptized) is to demonstrate that it is of the utmost importance for all to join the visible Church. (True)

Quote

XavierSem - I don't agree with anyone who teaches salvation by implicit faith and I confess that those who die as infidels are lost, however, no one but God knows who the infidels are and who did not die with the Catholic Faith, not having received Baptism of Desire or Perfect Contrition in the last seconds when God appeared to them. Baptism of desire can save people in all religions who "only appear" to have died as non-Catholics.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #42 on:** February 21, 2021, 12:49:27 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican on February 21, 2021, 12:23:28 PM

Here is a real example of a strict believer in BOD of the catechumen, CI member Mirari Vos, a person who limits his belief to the BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. ( In in bold are just my additions whether red or black). If he were to give his answers to a personal who was grieving the death of a non-Catholic relative and asked what was the fate of his relative, Mirari Vos's answers would be proper Catholic answers. The second separate quote at the bottom is what XavierSem really believes, that is the difference between a real BODer Mirari Vos, and a false BOD like XavierSem. That is why you do not see any strict BODers starting threads of CI, and you'll see the false BODers like Xvavier Sem never stop creating threads and stirring up debates with their chaff. (Chaff - is a radar countermeasure in which aircraft spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminum, which swamps the screen with multiple returns to where the target can't be identified.)

Quote from: Mirari Vos on Yesterday at 07:21:32 AM

It appears Xavier Sem is taking a position that permits him to also maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre's statement/belief that people can be saved "in other religions, but not by them" doesn't contradict his personal belief that one must have explicit Christ to be saved.

However, the failure of the Archbishop to clarify that he only meant those who "appear" to be in other religions, and the similar failure of those who follow him with the same view (Prominent among them being Bishops Fellay and Sanborn, for example), indicates the healing spin Xavier Sem attempts to put on the view is not the true interpretation - i.e., they really do believe one can be saved "in other religions but not by them" by being "good" and following their conscience etc.

This position of Lefebvre, Fellay and Sanborn after all just follows the prior thinking of churchmen like Fr. Fahey, who even went so far as to say that Jҽωs denying Christ could be saved "in their religion." Xavier Sem's spin is belied by the failure of clarification in the face of controversy/question and the prior precedent (vide Fahey) that it grows out of.

Xavier is trying to make consistent the Lefebvre etc. position with a position he holds (which is consistent with St. Thomas) that there may be some saved who have not externally exhibited explicit faith in Christ and may appear to be in other religions but have been be gifted with the revelation of the truth before death and/or in a manner that hasn't been externalized - the classic example being the deathbed conversion.

I wish that were what Lefebvre, Fellay, Sanborn, and a host of others thought, but the evidence is against it.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #43 on:** February 21, 2021, 12:54:04 PM »

Quote

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching."

I don’t know who wrote this catechism answer but it’s utterly confused. Not only did they mix-n-match BOD and BOB (which is theologically wrong), but then they erroneously include a perfect act of contrition into the mix. ?? What?!
.
If BOD truly gives one justification through the sacrament then you don’t need contrition because baptism washes away all your sins. The inclusion of a perfect act of contrition shows the writer is mixing and matching Trent's allowance for justification/salvation outside of confession (which only applies to Catholics) with the (alleged) BOD requirements.
.
The “answer” is a confused and erroneous combo of 3 different sacramental issues. What a mess!

Bonaventure · « **Reply #44 on:** February 21, 2021, 03:01:22 PM »

As we're on the subject of BOB/BOD, it appears that while you've been arguing the issue, the definition of BOB has been somewhat expanded....

Quote

"I have come here to thank you for your testimony and to pay homage to the people martyred by the insanity of nαzι populism," [Bergoglio] told her.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-02/pope-francis-meets-with-auschwitz-survivor.html

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 34505 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Nishant Xavier

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Nishant Xavier

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Ladislaus

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Last Tradhican

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

DecemRationis

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Pax Vobis

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus

Bonaventure

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus