Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 34553 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.

trad123 · « **Reply #50 on:** February 21, 2021, 05:05:27 PM »

St. Ambrose

On the Mysteries

Chapter 4:

Quote

20. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: "For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.

Letter 53, St. Ambrose to the Emperor Theodosius

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ambrose_letters_06_letters51_60.htm

Quote

2. I am filled, I confess, with bitter grief, not only because the death of Valentinian has been premature, but also because, having been trained in the faith and moulded by your teaching, he had conceived such devotion towards our God, and was so tenderly attached to myself, as to love one whom he had before persecuted, and to esteem as his father the man whom he had before repulsed as his enemy.

(. . .)

4. But hereafter we shall have time for sorrow; let us now care for his sepulture, which your Clemency has commanded to take place in this city. If he has died without Baptism, I now keep back what I know.

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #51 on:** February 21, 2021, 05:06:57 PM »

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

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).

Cyprian of Carthage (Church Father) – 200-258 AD (the first highlight in red BOB, the second BOD)

Epistle LXXII: To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, §22-23:

22. On which place some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the Gospel declaration, object to us the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name [of Christ], whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favorers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had "another baptism to be baptized with" (Lk. 12:50).

But the same Lord declares in the Gospel, that those who are baptized in their own blood, and sanctified by suffering, are perfected, and obtain the grace of the divine promise, when He speaks to the thief believing and confessing in His very passion, and promises that he should be with Himself in paradise. Wherefore we who are set over the faith and truth ought not to deceive and mislead those who come to the faith and truth, and repent, and beg that their sins should be remitted to them; but to instruct them when corrected by us, and reformed for the kingdom of heaven by celestial discipline.

But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?" The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. [ Marari Vos: I don’t believe he was questioning the validity of the heretics baptism, but rather that the heretics who converted, weren’t baptized at all]

trad123 · « **Reply #52 on:** February 21, 2021, 05:24:48 PM »

Quote from: Mirari Vos on February 21, 2021, 05:06:57 PM

Epistle LXXII: To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, §22-23:

23. But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?"

St. Cyprian was adamant that valid baptism was not possible outside the Church.

Further down,

# 24

Quote

24. Nor let any one think that, because baptism is proposed to them, heretics will be kept back from coming to the Church, as if offended at the name of a second baptism; nay, but on this very account they are rather driven to the necessity of coming by the testimony of truth shown and proved to them. For if they shall see that it is determined and decreed by our judgment and sentence, that the baptism wherewith they are there baptized is considered just and legitimate, they will think that they are justly and legitimately in possession of the Church also, and the other gifts of the Church; nor will there be any reason for their coming to us, when, as they have baptism, they seem also to have the rest. But further, when they know that there is no baptism without, and that no remission of sins can be given outside the Church, they more eagerly and readily hasten to us, and implore the gifts and benefits of the Church our Mother, assured that they can in no wise attain to the true promise of divine grace unless they first come to the truth of the Church. Nor will heretics refuse to be baptized among us with the lawful and true baptism of the Church, when they shall have learned from us that they also were baptized by Paul, who already had been baptized with the baptism of John, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles.

https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

Quote

Father Francois Laisney, in a letter written to me in 1999 on this issue, labored much to convince me that Saint Cyprian favored baptism of desire. Regarding those converted heretics who were received back into the Church by the western bishops and the head of the Church himself without being rebaptized, he proved his point. But these converts were in a different category than catechumens — after all, they were accepted as members of the Church by the pope, and Cyprian himself, at least in council, was not denying the pope the right to admit these converts without rebaptizing them. Remember, in the previously-cited letter to Jubaianus he was arguing that this decision should be left to each individual bishop. His contention, therefore, if one looks at the logic of the actual argument and not his excessive vitriol, was not that the “deposit of faith” was being compromised by Pope Stephen, but that, for certainty sake, when the validity of heretical baptisms was questionable (as it was in his mind) the matter fell to one of discipline. To quote Saint Cyprian: “God is powerful in His mercy to give forgiveness also to those who were admitted into the Church in simplicity [of heart] and who died in the Church and not to separate them from the gifts of the Church” (Letter to Jubaianus, n. 23, Patrologia Latina 3, 1125). I put the emphasis on “died in the Church” to prove my point. If Saint Cyprian definitely believed that the Faith itself was being compromised, and that to accept the validity of heretical baptisms was itself “heretical,” then he would not have said that the deceased converts, who were not rebaptized, “died in the Church.” If Fathers Rulleau and Laisney wish to believe that Saint Cyprian was transmitting an apostolic tradition concerning baptism of desire, fine; but they certainly should not insist that fellow Catholics are obligated to believe that. They should also take note that Saint Augustine did not cite Cyprian as an authority when he first proposed baptism of desire as his own personal opinion.

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #53 on:** February 21, 2021, 08:21:13 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on February 21, 2021, 05:24:48 PM

St. Cyprian was adamant that valid baptism was not possible outside the Church.

Further down,

# 24

https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

Thanks for the correction.

trad123 · « **Reply #54 on:** February 21, 2021, 08:44:23 PM »

Quote from: Mirari Vos on February 21, 2021, 03:53:27 PM

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

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

Are you using this as the source of quotes?

Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire

https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire/page/n31/mode/2up?

Page 14

Amazon doesn't allow preview of the following book anymore, nor does Google:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879071672/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0879071672&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 />

I posted an excerpt here, but I only wrote the page numbers, not the title of the docuмent:

Quote

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg687079/#msg687079

and

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg687087/#msg687087

If that's the same letter, the following was omitted in part:

Quote

8. It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars--I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, imitating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #55 on:** February 21, 2021, 08:48:35 PM »

Mirari Vos,
You commit the same error of Xavier, by mixing and matching BOD with BOB. Firstly, concerning St Augustine, I can only say that he went back and forth on the issue. If he were alive today, he could give a clear answer but his writings do contradict themselves, to some degree.
.
Regarding St Bernard, he is basing his argument on St Augustine and St Ambrose, but...he is only putting forth his personal opinion. Nowhere does St Bernard say his theology is de fide, or a certainty of faith, nor does it have a theological consensus. So we are free to reject it or accept it. It's just an opinion.
.
St Ambrose:

Quote

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.

This is clearly BOB, so it's not related to BOD. Irrelevant to the thread.
.
St Cyprian:

Quote

But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?" The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. [ Marari Vos: I don’t believe he was questioning the validity of the heretics baptism, but rather that the heretics who converted, weren’t baptized at all]

St Cyprian is not talking about BOD, but about re-baptizing heretics who want to repent and come back to the Faith. St Cyprian held that re-baptism is necessary, was wrong, was rebuked by the pope and recanted his error. Based on his flawed views on baptism, I don't think anyone should consider his quotes on BOD or BOB as orthodox or relevant.
.
Summary: Your only pro-BOD "proof" is the opinion/theories of St Bernard, who based his arguments on St Ambrose (whose quotes on Valentinian are misunderstood and taken out of context) and St Augustine (who flip-flopped on the issue). Not very weighty arguments.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #56 on:** February 21, 2021, 11:51:01 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 21, 2021, 12:49:27 PM

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.

His revealed belief is the same as the False BODer, Lover of Truth, the CI all time king of starting BOD threads, with like over 10x more threads than XavierSem. Been there seen that. All it is, is an end run around all the dogmas on EENS and the sacraments, and what they end up teaching instead is "who knows who is outside of the Church, and who knows who didn't receive the sacraments". It is just a last gasp rationalization to hold onto their sanity when besieged on all sides against all of their glaring inconsistencies.

By comparison one has to respect Fr. Cekada for his honest defense:

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.”

( P.S. - That quote by Fr. Cekada, may he rest in peace, needs to be updated to address a defined BOD, the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas. Below is what the false BODers really believe TODAY concerning the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas:

“With the strict, literal interpretation of the limited BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas, 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 do not have explicit desire to be baptized or explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-believers - Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists, Jҽωs.... 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.”)

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #57 on:** February 22, 2021, 02:12:16 AM »

Quote from: trad123 on February 21, 2021, 08:44:23 PM

Are you using this as the source of quotes?

Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire

https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire/page/n31/mode/2up?

Page 14

Amazon doesn't allow preview of the following book anymore, nor does Google:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879071672/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0879071672&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 />

I posted an excerpt here, but I only wrote the page numbers, not the title of the docuмent:

If that's the same letter, the following was omitted in part:

Yes, that is the book and thanks for the additional quote.

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #58 on:** February 22, 2021, 03:18:25 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 21, 2021, 08:48:35 PM

Mirari Vos,
You commit the same error of Xavier, by mixing and matching BOD with BOB. Firstly, concerning St Augustine, I can only say that he went back and forth on the issue. If he were alive today, he could give a clear answer but his writings do contradict themselves, to some degree.
.
Regarding St Bernard, he is basing his argument on St Augustine and St Ambrose, but...he is only putting forth his personal opinion. Nowhere does St Bernard say his theology is de fide, or a certainty of faith, nor does it have a theological consensus. So we are free to reject it or accept it. It's just an opinion.
.
St Ambrose:

This is clearly BOB, so it's not related to BOD. Irrelevant to the thread.
.
St Cyprian:

St Cyprian is not talking about BOD, but about re-baptizing heretics who want to repent and come back to the Faith. St Cyprian held that re-baptism is necessary, was wrong, was rebuked by the pope and recanted his error. Based on his flawed views on baptism, I don't think anyone should consider his quotes on BOD or BOB as orthodox or relevant.
.
Summary: Your only pro-BOD "proof" is the opinion/theories of St Bernard, who based his arguments on St Ambrose (whose quotes on Valentinian are misunderstood and taken out of context) and St Augustine (who flip-flopped on the issue). Not very weighty arguments.

As I said before, BOD and BOB don’t require the reception of the sacrament of baptism which in essence puts a big hole into the BOD denier’s theory since in both cases they are similar in that the actual sacrament is not absolutely necessary and can be satisfied in another way. Thus, if you believe in BOB, you really should have no problem believing in BOD. Some pre Trent theologians may have alluded to the idea that their blood was used in place of water, but this wasn’t as common as you would have us believe. I have hardly conflated the two by stating this.

The quote from St. Ambrose is unambiguously BOD, I cannot believe how anyone can believe otherwise. Valentinian was not martyred.

The 700 years of unanimous teaching against BOD, touted by Lad, has been refuted, thus putting another hole into the deniers of BOD’s theory.

BOD and BOB has been taught unanimously post Trent and was held by a number of theologians to be either de fide or another theological qualification close to it.

There are ABSOLUTELY NO theologian who holds or has held your opinion post Trent. What you and Lad are doing is the same as what the R&R people do to the Church’s teachings on the pope and the magisterium with regard to the sedevacantist position, you make your belief fit no matter what. Lower the status of the pope/lower the status of the theologians. This is attested to the fact that you tried to disparage Saint Bernard’s opinion.

As for Saint Cyprian, regardless of whether he held that re-baptism was necessary, that doesn’t take away from the fact that Saint Cyprian held that those who he believed were not validly baptized, could still be saved. In other words, he thought that the former heretics that came back to the Church and were invalidly baptized could still be saved through God’s mercy (BOD). Do you see? Look at the quote again:

But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?" The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #59 on:** February 22, 2021, 07:49:27 AM »

@Mirari Vos, Some Excellent Points.

@Pax Vobis. Pax probably hasn't read either St. Alphonsus or Pope St. Pius X, as his last response reveals he doesn't know that Baptism of Desire IS Perfect Contrition. Also, when St. Bernard speaks of faith, he means the "living faith that works by charity", that justifies.

Fr. Haydock on Luk 7:47: "She was justified by the living faith that works by charity, and this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church".

St. Alphonsus: "But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water ... Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire"

Pope St. Pius X: "The absence of Baptism may be supplied by an act of perfect love of God or of contrition ... along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire"

Also, Pope St. Pius V has pre-emptively condemned the Jansenist Dimonds in the Jansenist Michael Baius: "CONDEMNED:

Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins."

From: https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/baptism-of-blood-and-of-desire/

Thus, the following propositions are dogmatic Truths, after Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent:

1. Perfect and Sincere Charity, in both Catechumens and Penitents, avails the Remission of Sins. (See also the Roman Catechism).
2. That Charity which is the fullness of the law IS always necessarily connected with the Remission of Sins, i.e. Confers Justification.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius V, and St. Charles Borromeo, of the Council of Trent: "if any unforeseen accident prevents them from being washed in the salutary waters, their desire and intention to receive Baptism will avail them to Grace and Righteousness".

Yes, every post-Tridentine Theologian clearly considers Baptism of Desire is taught by the Church. Some of them, probably because simply no one was even contesting it, just clearly and expressly teach the doctrine without mentioning an express theological note.

Here are some examples. If you follow the Dimonds on this matter, you are not in peace and communion with the Catholic Church.

"I. FR. DOMINIC PRUMMER, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949:

“Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire for Baptism by water”;
“Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by Water”;
“Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire… both cause sanctifying grace. …Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial sin and temporal punishment…”

II. FR. FRANCIS O’CONNELL, Outlines of Moral Theology, 1953:

“Baptism of Desire… is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition…”
“These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood and Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament.”
“…Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith….”

III. MGR. J. H. HERVE, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV), 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
The various baptisms: from the Tridentinum itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied: namely, an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism, and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one, as it were, generic name, so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood).
IV. FR. H. NOLDEN, S.J., FR. A. SCHMIT, S.J. — Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis), Book 2 Quaestio prima, 1921
Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition, however, have the power to confer sanctifying grace.
V. FR. ARTHUR VERMEERSCH, S.J., Theologiae Moralis (Vol. III), Tractatus II,1948:
The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; …but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: “He who loves me, is loved by my Father” (John 14:21).
VI. FR. LUDOVICO BILLOT, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacmmentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV – 1931:
Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire, is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition including a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins.
VII. FR. ALOYSIA SABETTI, S.J., FR. TIMOTHEO BARRETT, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Tractatus XII [De Baptismo, Chapter I, 1926:
Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation…
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water… Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).
VIII. FR. EDUARDUS GENICOT, S.]., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol. II),Tractatus XII, 1902
Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected…
Both are called “of desire” (in voto)…; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one, of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation."

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 34553 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

trad123

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

Mirari Vos

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

trad123

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

Pax Vobis

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

Last Tradhican

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

Nishant Xavier

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