Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 39762 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #45 on:** February 21, 2021, 03:11:02 PM »

Quote

Xavier said:
1. Yes, Fr. Cekada clearly proves BOD is at least theologically certain Catholic Doctrine, and thus an objective mortal sin to publicly deny.
.
2. St. Alphonsus teaches that Souls are saved by BOD is de fide because of Trent in Theologia Moralis....Therefore, all Catholics - even without knowing reasons - can safely teach BOD is de fide dogma.

My conclusion: Either Fr Cekada is wrong for stating BOD is theologically certain, or St Alphonsus is wrong for saying BOD is de fide. They can't both be correct. Theologically wrong is totally different than de fide.
.
2nd conclusion: Xavier is definitely wrong for supporting both men's views, since he is supporting a contradiction. Does he realize this? I don't think so.

Quote

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

My conclusion: I don't even understand the distinction nor do I understand what you're trying to say.
.
Overall conclusion: I'm not confident that Xavier understands theological terms enough to have this debate...

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #46 on:** February 21, 2021, 03:35:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2021, 11:01:38 AM

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
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.

Hugh of St. Victor, a proponent of BOD, says that Saint Augustine didn’t reject his early opinion on BOD, he only rejected the example he used: (see highlight in red, but read the whole tract)

Hugh of St. Victor – 1096-1141 AD

De Sacramentis, Bk. II, Part VI:

Some either through curiosity or zeal are accustomed to inquire whether anyone after the enjoining and proclaiming of the sacrament of baptism can be saved, unless he actually receives the sacrament of baptism itself. For the reasons seem to be manifest and they have many authorities, (if, however, they are said to have authorities, who do not understand); first, because it is said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” (Cf. John 3, 5), and again: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved,” (Mark 16, 16). There are many such passages which seem, as it were, to affirm that by no means can he be saved who has not had this sacrament, whatever he may have besides this sacrament. If he should have perfect faith, if hope, if he should have charity, even if he should have a contrite and humble heart which God does not despise, true repentance for the past, firm purpose for the future, whatever he may have, he will not be able to be saved, if he does not have this.

All this seems so to them on account of what is written: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” (Cf. John 3, 5). Yet if someone should ask; what has happened to those who, after shedding blood for Christ, departed this life without the sacrament of water, they dare not say that men of this kind are not saved. And, although one cannot show that this is written in what is mentioned above, yet they dare not say that, because it is not written there, it is to be denied. For he who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost,” did not add: “or by pouring forth his blood instead of water, “ and yet this is true, although it is not written here. For if he is saved who received water on account of God, why is he not saved much more who sheds blood on account of God? For it is more to give blood than to receive water.

Moreover, what some say is clearly silly, that those who shed blood are saved because with blood they also shed water and in the very water which they shed they receive baptism. For if those who are killed are said to have been baptized on account of the moisture of water which drips from their wounds together with the corruption of blood, then those who are suffocated or drowned or are killed by some other kind of death where blood is not shed have not been baptized in their blood and have died for Christ in vain, because they did not shed the moisture of the water which they had within their body. Who would say this? So, he is baptized in blood who dies for Christ, who, even if he does not shed blood from the wound, gives life which is more precious than blood. For he could shed blood and, if he did not give life, shedding blood would be less than giving life. Therefore, he sheds blood well who lays down his life for Christ, and he has his baptism in the virtue of the sacrament, without which to have received the sacrament itself, as it were, is of no benefit. So where this is the case, to be unable to have the sacrament does no harm.

Thus, it is true, although it is not said there, that he who dies for Christ is baptized in Christ. Thus, they say, it is true, although it is not said there, and it is true because it is said elsewhere, even if it is not said there. For He who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God,” the same also said elsewhere: “He who shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father,” (Cf. Matt.10, 32). And so what is not said there, is nevertheless to be understood although it is not said, since it is said elsewhere. Behold therefore why they say it. They say that what is not said is to be understood where it is not said, because it is said elsewhere. If, therefore, this is to be understood in this place where it is not said, since it is said elsewhere: “He who believeth in me, shall not die forever,” (Cf. John 11, 26). Likewise He who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God,” He himself said: “He who believeth in me, shall not die for ever,” therefore, either deny faith or concede salvation. What does it seem to you? Where there is faith, where there is hope, where there is charity, finally, where there is the full and perfect virtue of the sacrament, there is no salvation because the sacrament alone is not and it is not, because it cannot be possessed. “He that believeth,” He said, “and is baptized, shall be saved,” (Mark 16, 16).

Therefore behold there is no doubt but that where there is faith and is baptism, there is salvation. And what follows? “But he that believeth shall not be condemned,” (Cf. Mark 16, 16). Why did He wish to speak thus? Why did He not say: “He that believeth not and is not baptized, shall be condemned,” just as He had said: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved?” Why, unless because it is of the will to believe and because he who wishes to believe cannot lack faith. And so in him who does not believe, an evil will is always shown, where there can be no necessity which may be put forth as an excuse. Now to be baptized can be in the will, even when it is not possibility, and on this account justly is good will with the with the devotion of its faith not to be despised, although in a moment of necessity he is prevented from receiving that sacrament of water which is external. Do you wish to know more fully whether or not this reason is proven elsewhere by more manifest authority, although even those authorities which we have mentioned above seem so manifest that there can be no doubt about the truth of them? Listen to something more, if by chance this matter about which you should not be in doubt can be shown you more clearly.

Blessed Augustine in his book, “On the One Baptism,” speaks as follows: again and again as I consider it, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can fulfill what was lacking to baptism but also faith and conversion of heart, if perhaps assistance could not be rendered for the celebration of the mystery of baptism in straitened circuмstances. You see that he clearly testifies that faith and conversion of heart can suffice for the salvation of good will where it happens that the visible sacrament of water of necessity cannot be had. But lest perhaps you think that he contradicted himself, since afterwards in the Book of Retractions he disapproved of the example of the thief which he had assumed to establish this opinion where he had said that the shedding of blood or faith and change of heart could fulfill the place of baptism, saying: “In the fourth book, when I said that suffering could take the place of baptism, I did not furnish a sufficiently fitting example in that of the thief about whom there is some doubt as to whether he was baptized,” you should consider that in this place he only corrected an example which he had offered to prove his opinion; he did not reject his opinion. But if you think that that opinion is to be rejected, because the example is corrected, then what he had said is false, that the shedding of blood can take the place of baptism, since the example itself was furnished to prove that. For he does not say: “When I said that faith could have the place of baptism,” but he says: “When I said that suffering could have the place of baptism,” although he had placed both in the one opinion. If, therefore, regarding what he said, that suffering can have the place of baptism, an example has been furnished, since it is established that it is true without any ambiguity, it is clear that the example was afterwards corrected but the opinion was not rejected.

You should, therefore, either confess that true faith and confession of the heart can fulfill the place of baptism in the moment of necessity or show how true faith and unfeigned charity can be possessed where there is no salvation. Unless perhaps you wish to say that no one can have true faith and true charity, who is not to have the visible sacrament of water. Yet by what reason or by what authority you prove this I do not know. We meanwhile do not ask whether anyone who is not to receive the sacrament of baptism can have these, since this alone as far as this matter is concerned is certain: if there were anyone who had these even without the visible sacrament of water he could not perish. There are many other things which could have been brought up to prove this, but what we have set forth above in the treatment of the sacraments to prove this point we by no means think needs reconsideration.

*Source: Deferrari, Roy J. On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith: (De Sacramentis). Cambridge, MA: mєdιαeval Academy of America, 1951.

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #47 on:** February 21, 2021, 03:53:27 PM »

St. Bernard is another theologian who demonstrates that there was not a 700 year unanimous opinion on the subject.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Doctor of the Church) – 1090-1153 AD

Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism:

§6. If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity... §7. But I am very much astonished if this new inventor of new assertions and assertor of inventions has been able to find in this matter arguments which escaped the notice of the holy fathers Ambrose and Augustine or an authority greater than their authority. [He then quotes both passages given above...] §8. Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two columns, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose...believing with them that people can be saved by faith alone and the desire to receive the sacrament, however only in the case that un timely death or some other insuperable force keep them from fulfilling their pious desire. Notice also that, when the Savior said “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,” He cautiously and alertly did not repeat the phrase “who was not baptized,” but only “whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). This intimated that sometimes faith alone would suffice for salvation, and that without it, nothing would be sufficient.

For this reason, even if it is granted that martyrdom can take the place of baptism, it is clearly not the penalty which does this, but faith itself. For without faith what is martyrdom, if not a penalty? It is faith's doing that martyrdom can without any doubt be considered the equivalent of baptism. Would not faith be very sickly and weak in itself, if what it can give to another, it cannot obtain by itself? To be sure, to pour out one's blood for Christ is an indubitable proof of great faith–but to men, not to God. But what if God, who needs to perform no experiments to test for what He wants, saw great faith in the heart of someone dying in peace, not put to the question by martyrdom, but suitable for martyrdom nevertheless? If he remembers that he has not yet received the sacrament and sorrowfully and repentantly asks for it with all his heart, but cannot receive it because his death comes too quickly, will God damn his faithful one? Will He damn, I ask, a person who is even prepared to die for Him? Paul says: “No one can say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Ghost” (I Cor. 12:3).

Will we say that such a one, who at the moment of death not only invokes the Lord Jesus, but asks for the sacrament with his every longing, either does not speak in the Holy Ghost, so that the Apostle was mistaken, or is damned even though he has the Holy Ghost? He has the Savior dwelling in his heart by faith (Eph 3:17) and in his mouth by confession (Rom 10:10); will he then be damned with the Savior? Certainly if martyrdom obtains its prerogative only by the merit of faith, so that it is safely and singularly accepted in the place of baptism, I do not see why faith itself cannot with equal cause and without martyrdom be just as great in God's eyes, who knows of it without the proof of martyrdom. I would say it can be just as great as far as obtaining salvation goes, but it is not as great in regard to the accuмulation of merit, in which martyrdom surely surpasses it. We read: “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer” (I Jn. 3:15); and again, “Whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt. 5:28). How could it be more evident that the wish is considered the equivalent of the deed, when necessity excludes the deed? That is, unless one thinks that God, who is love, would impute us the evil deeds of the will and not the good, and that the merciful and compassionate Lord is more ready to punish than to reward. Suppose someone who is at the point of death happens to remember that he is bound by a debt to another. If he lacks the means to pay it, he is still believed to obtain pardon solely by repentance and contrition of heart, and so he is not damned on account of it. In the same way, faith alone and turning the mind to God, without the spilling of blood or the pouring of water, doubtlessly bring salvation to one who has the will but not the way– because death intervenes–to be baptized. And just as in the former case no repentance remits sin if, when he can, he does not restore what he owes, so in the latter faith is of no avail, if, when he can, he does not receive the sacrament. He is shown not to have perfect faith, if he neglects to do so. True and full faith complies with all the commandments; this particular commandment is the foremost of them all.

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #48 on:** February 21, 2021, 04:28:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 21, 2021, 11:01:38 AM

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.

St. Ambrose is not in the least bit ambiguous. Everyone should read his words below and see for themselves.

As for catechumens, all he is saying is that Valentinian did not have a solemn funeral service, as was the custom at the time which didn’t even allow for martyred catechumens to have one. (See below in red)

St. Ambrose of Milan (Church Father & Doctor of the Church) – 340-397 AD

De obitu Valentiniani consolation, Funeral Oration of the Emperor Valentinian II, 392 AD:

51. But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request? But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified a desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore is it said: "By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest." (Wisdom 4:7) 52. Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected, who on the day before his death refused to restore the privileges of the temples although he was pressed by those whom he could well have feared. A crowd of pagans was present, the Senate entreated, but he was not afraid to displease men so long as he pleased Thee alone in Christ. He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace?

Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.

trad123 · « **Reply #49 on:** February 21, 2021, 05:02:30 PM »

St. Ambrose, On Abraham, 2.11.84:

https://classicalchristianity.com/2014/07/17/st-ambrose-of-milan-on-the-unbaptized/

Quote

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (cf. Jn. 3:5). No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they have the honor of the Kingdom.

St. Ambrose, On Abraham, 2:11:79–84

https://unsettledchristianity.com/church-fathers-on-john-3-5/

Quote

“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.
. . . ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’”

I don't feel like spending money on this at the moment:

https://ctosonline.org/patristic/OA.html

Quote

On Abraham by Saint Ambrose of Milan
Translated by Theodosia Tomkinson

There is no option to buy a PDF; only printed form.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 39762 times)

Pax Vobis

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

Mirari Vos

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

Mirari Vos

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

Mirari Vos

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

trad123

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