Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 7665 times)

2Vermont · « **Reply #105 on:** February 22, 2021, 12:56:59 PM »

Quote from: Mirari Vos on February 20, 2021, 07:21:32 AM

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. 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.

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. In the case of the unbaptised person who is dying (not a catechumen), is it possible that they asked a nurse to baptize them? Of course. Did this ever had happen? Possibly. Does it happen often? Obviously no.

How about the case of a Jєω who was secretly learning the catechism? Wouldn’t he be considered a catechumen? 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. 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.

Sorry...just getting back to this thread. This explanation makes a lot of sense to me. I see that Last Tradhican also agreed with it, but he is anti-BOD. So, I'm not sure what to make of the positions in this thread. It's probably why I tend to stay out of the Feeney Ghetto....lol.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #106 on:** February 22, 2021, 12:57:16 PM »

Pax, Baptism as we know has replaced Circuмcision. Circuмcision left its mark on the body. The Doctors and Saints say, mostly in expressing the non-repeatability of Sacramental Baptism, that Baptism likewise leaves its indelible mark on the soul. It also makes us full members of the Mystical Body. Some here have speculated that BOD would have to impress the Sacramental Character also. I hold that Cornelius received BOD, as I explained with sources from Scripture and Tradition (like St. Augustine and the Council of Orange - that's now the sixth ancient source on BOD by my count that comes to mind), but if he had received the Character then, what need for him to be baptized? In fact, he could not have been. I hold that in Water Baptism, one receives the plenary remission of all temporary punishments including those which, depending on the intensity of one's contrition, one would not have been released from in BOD, as St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus explain. Thus, even one who has already received BOD still needs to be baptized to be able to go to Heaven straightaway rather to Purgatory. The Character of Sacramental also makes us full members of the Visible Body of the Church.

Here's the text of St. Ambrose as cited by Mirari Vos: “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.”

I'm not sure what St. Ambrose means by the first sentence. The second seems fairly plain. St. Ambrose is arguing from the fact that almost everyone grants that Martyrs are saved, because they are washed in their own blood. Thus, the Doctor is saying, similarly, the Catechumen is washed by his piety and desire (what St. Augustine, cited by St. Thomas had called "faith and conversion of heart".)

Regarding the first sentence, could it possibly refer to Baptism and Confirmation/Chrismation? I don't know. Maybe St. Ambrose meant "they are not Crowned/Chrismated" if they are not "Initiated/Baptized". Thus the meaning would be martyrs who are catechumens are neither Baptized nor Chrismated. Maybe. But I'm not sure what it means and I haven't really meditated on that part of the text before.

Question to you: Someone who dies justified has Christ and the Holy Spirit living in him. Can he really go to hell/limbo for all eternity?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #107 on:** February 22, 2021, 01:12:40 PM »

Quote

Question to you: Someone who dies justified has Christ and the Holy Spirit living in him. Can he really go to hell/limbo for all eternity?

Well, Scripture is clear that those without the baptismal character (i.e. wedding garment) cannot stay at the Wedding Feast (heaven). So, yes, a lack of baptismal character would send one to Limbo (a place of natural happiness).
.
Since heaven is not promised to any of us, then the lack of baptism sacramentally (i.e. one was only justified by BOD but did not receive the sacrament), that means that God allowed the person to die justified but unbaptized. That means that God knew from all eternity that the person would not be baptized. So, yes, God decided not to give that person the gift of salvation (because they were not members of the Church but only justified). But God did prevent them from hell and gave them the gift of natural happiness in Limbo.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #108 on:** February 22, 2021, 01:18:32 PM »

The opinion that someone is lost who dies in Grace, who merited eternal life by the good works he did in God, as Trent said, is heretical.

There is no dogmatic Tradition of adults going to limbo now in the era after Christ. Supposing they did go to limbo, which limbo?

The limbo of the Fathers? But that is closed. Second, if supposedly they could go there, then could they supposedly leave also one day?

The limbo of the infants? But they are not infants. Moreover, justification means the remission of original sin. So they don't have OS.

The Old dispensation was different. Yet, even in the OT, those who died in Grace were ultimately saved. They just had to wait.

God not only foreknew but also predestined all His elect would die in Grace. And He has determined that that is sufficient for salvation.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #109 on:** February 22, 2021, 02:01:04 PM »

Quote

The opinion that someone is lost who dies in Grace, who merited eternal life by the good works he did in God, as Trent said, is heretical.

"Lost" commonly refers to hellfire and damnation. Those in Limbo are not saved, yet they are also not damned to hellfire.
.

Quote

There is no dogmatic Tradition of adults going to limbo now in the era after Christ. Supposing they did go to limbo, which limbo?

That's the point. The Church has not told us.
.

Quote

God not only foreknew but also predestined all His elect would die in Grace. And He has determined that that is sufficient for salvation.

Baptized and justified is different from unbaptized and justified. The Church has told us what happens to the former but not the latter. If you argue that the justified all go to heaven, regardless of the sacrament of baptism, then you are saying 1) the sacrament doesn't matter, 2) the indelible mark doesn't matter, 3) the question of remission of sins doesn't matter and 4) partial members of the Church are = full members of the Church.
.
The Church has not explained ANY of this.

Mirari Vos · « **Reply #110 on:** February 22, 2021, 02:58:55 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2021, 10:56:06 PM

All those people were dead by the 500s. Add 700 yrs and you have the 1200s, with St Thomas.
.
BOB is not BOD. 2 totally separate theological things. If a doctor supported B.O.Blood, that is not an automatic support of BOD.

Sorry, one last interjection. This post made me believe that the 700 year unanimous opinion was related to BOD.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #111 on:** February 22, 2021, 03:43:45 PM »

Unanswered question:

Quote

Xavier, if justification is all that is necessary to gain heaven, then why does the baptismal character matter?
.
Why does St Ambrose make a distinction between the martyered catechumen who was not crowned and the martyred catechumen who was baptized and crowned?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #112 on:** February 22, 2021, 04:55:22 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 22, 2021, 01:18:32 PM

The opinion that someone is lost who dies in Grace, who merited eternal life by the good works he did in God, as Trent said, is heretical.

There is no dogmatic Tradition of adults going to limbo now in the era after Christ. Supposing they did go to limbo, which limbo?

The limbo of the Fathers? But that is closed. Second, if supposedly they could go there, then could they supposedly leave also one day?

The limbo of the infants? But they are not infants. Moreover, justification means the remission of original sin. So they don't have OS.

The Old dispensation was different. Yet, even in the OT, those who died in Grace were ultimately saved. They just had to wait.

God not only foreknew but also predestined all His elect would die in Grace. And He has determined that that is sufficient for salvation.

Indeed, there's no Tradition of adults going to Limbo. This, as I stated, is my own speculation, to answer the question to which Father Feeney answered "I don't know."

See, I believe in fact that the Limbo of the Fathers is empty. "Closed" is not the right word, as if it were a physical place with gates on it. Now, the reason I believe it's empty is because I hold, with St. Augustine, that God does not allow anyone to persevere in a state of justification without providing the Sacrament to them, even if, extraordinarily, by, say having an angel baptize them. AND, LastTrad cited countless examples of saints who raised people back to life in order to baptize them ... so another extraordinary means to confer Baptism. St. Thomas stated that an angel from heaven might go to someone dying who has not placed any obstacles in the way of grace, if necessary, in order to enlighten them. There's nothing preventing said angel from also baptizing those same people.

I tend to agree with the Fathers who viewed the martyrs as receiving the Sacrament. I'll demonstrate this on that other thread of yours. That too is speculation, though, and if some martyrs died in a state of justification without the Sacrament, then in my opinion, they would go to a Limbo of the Fathers.

But IN THEORY, if God allowed someone to die without the Sacrament in the state of justification, then they WOULD hypothetically go to the Limbo of the Fathers. That's what happened to the Old Testament just, and that is because, as I hold, there was something ontologically missing for them to be able to experience the Beatific Vision, that same something conferred by the Sacramental character of Baptism, the supernatural faculty to see God as He is, which we lack by nature.

Limbo of infants is for those who have no guilt of actual sin but also are not justified (unlike those in the Limbo of the Fathers). Of course, it's not just for infants; it also pertains to any who have not reached the age of reason (say, the mentally retarded) and therefore been unable to either sin or to cooperate with God's grace unto justification.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #113 on:** February 23, 2021, 07:42:54 AM »

So how do you explain those words of Trent? Trent says the justified have fully satisfied divine law by their works done in Grace and truly merited eternal life if they but die in Grace. Your private opinions are manifestly contrary to the dogmatic teaching of Trent.

If you want to speculate those dying in Grace receive Miraculous Water Baptism, or received earlier Secret Water Baptisms, go right ahead. You may as well speculate all those dying in Grace also receive Holy Communion in both kinds, because of what Our Lord said.

"Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you". Now, I know you will appeal from Our Lord to Theologians. LOL.

But if you deny that now, after Christ, those dying in Christ's Grace having received the outpouring of His Holy Spirit, which was given after the Resurrection, even those who have shed blood for Christ in the Catholic Church, go ultimately to Heaven, that is plain heresy.

Again, your particular opinions have hardly ever been held before, which is why Catholic Theologians don't expressly deal with them. One of the Doctors cited earlier in this thread, I believe by MV, said that it was "silly" to claim that Water was mixed with Blood in some types of Martyrdom, which presumably would exclude other types of Martyrdom. But that hasn't been the Church's Teaching.

For those who asked for Magisterial source defining Baptism of Desire and Blood, I already gave both the Baltimore Catechism and Pope St. Pius X, which quotes Our Lord's Word on the subject, and explains them both. And Theologians that say Catechisms are part of OUM.

When Catechisms propose something as part of the Church's Teaching based on Scripture, they are to be accepted by all the faithful.

Answer my question: if someone denies Limbo now, is he is he not denying the Church's Teaching? Catechisms have taught Limbo.

Yet you claim those same Catechisms, which promise eternal life, based on Christ's Word and the Church's Authority to those with BOD, are not Church Teaching. If you claim those souls are now lost, because they followed the Church's Teaching, you calumniate the Church as having caused the loss of souls.

The Catechisms say, explaining the Lord's Word, "We know that Baptism of Desire and Blood will save us". The OUM has spoken here.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #114 on:** February 23, 2021, 08:06:41 AM »

Unanswered question, 3rd edition:

Quote

Xavier, if justification is all that is necessary to gain heaven, then why does the baptismal character matter?
.
Why does St Ambrose make a distinction between the martyered catechumen who was not crowned and the martyred catechumen who was baptized and crowned?

.
Additional question: Xavier, be honest. Do you not see the problem I am pinpointing above? I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm right. I'm merely pointing out a part of baptismal theology which isn't adequately explained. Do you see the lack of explanation and *apparent* problem? (At some point, the Church will clear up this problem, but for now, it's not clear).
.
This is what Fr Feeney was questioning too, when he said "I don't know".

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #115 on:** February 23, 2021, 08:12:33 AM »

I answered that question earlier. See the reply above that begins with "Pax, Baptism as we know has replaced Circuмcision".

I don't think you answered mine from Trent. But I appreciate what you are saying, you believe it requires further clarification.

I also give you the acceptable limits of theological speculation. Why don't you agree with SBC below, which has qualified what Fr. Feeney said somewhat, "Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. "

I don't consider SBC's position to be heretical at all. I agree with them that the underlined is a dogma, and so the contrary is heresy.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #116 on:** February 23, 2021, 08:49:32 AM »

Quote

Someone who dies justified has Christ and the Holy Spirit living in him. Can he really go to hell/limbo for all eternity?

Yes, it's possible. I'm not saying I know this as a fact/dogma, I'm saying "I don't know" just as Fr Feeney said. But...we have the example of the Old Testament Justified who did not go to heaven for 2 reasons: 1) Heaven was closed until Christ redeemed us all and 2) they were not baptized.
.
Many saints have theorized that the Old Testament "saints" were baptized before they could enter heaven, with Christ, on the Ascension. So this theory is not made up; there is a historical/theological basis for it.
.
On the other hand, you could be correct....the justified but unbaptized could go to heaven. BUT. WE. DON'T. KNOW. FOR. SURE. The entire Fr Feeney "controversy" boils down to this question. Fr Feeney said "I don't know what happens to the justified but unbaptized". And 99% of the BOD'ers say he's a heretic for saying he "doesn't know". Meanwhile, no BOD'er can point to ANY Church docuмent which clearly answers this specific question.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #117 on:** February 23, 2021, 08:56:02 AM »

All the OT just ultimately went to heaven. You are saying some will ultimately are not go. So the two are not equivalent.

Quote some of those Saints for us, and let's take a look at what they said. Also, if you believe the OT just were supposedly resurrected from the dead to be baptized, how do you know those Baptized by Desire also will not also supposedly be resurrected to be Baptized?

St. Alphonsus says it is de fide that souls are saved by Baptism of Desire. Since the Church has the conviction that some souls, who have died with Baptism of Desire only, are surely saved - even if only ultimately and not immєdιαtely - She teaches that BOD can save.

Baltimore Catechism: "We know that Baptism of Desire can save us ... from Holy Scripture which teaches" etc.

Also, Roman Catechism: In context, said the dangers for infants being eternally lost are not present for adults. According to you, that same danger of going to limbo is present for them as well. The RC said "when any unforeseen accident makes it impossible for them to be washed in the salutary waters, their determination and resolution to receive Baptism will avail them to Grace and Righteousness".

The implication of the Roman Catechism is plain that these adults will be saved when they die. It contrasted them with infants.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #118 on:** February 23, 2021, 08:56:08 AM »

Quote

no one is lost who dies in the state of grace
.

I agree with them that the underlined is a dogma, and so the contrary is heresy.

So were the Old Testament Just who went to Limbo "lost"? Obviously not.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #119 on:** February 23, 2021, 09:02:49 AM »

Yes, they were not ultimately lost, were they, because they went to Heaven in the end. But you are saying some may be eternally lost. I disagree with that.

From: https://www.traditionalcatechism.com/the_necessity_of_baptism.php#:~:text=The%20Catechism%20of%20the%20Council%20of%20Trent%20clearly%20says%20concerning,them%20to%20grace%20and%20righteousness.%E2%80%9D

"Two Other Ways the Fruits of this Sacrament may be Received

In addition to the normative Baptism by water and Spirit that Christ commands, there are also the merciful "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism of Blood." While Christ has given us the Sacrament as outlined above, and we are bound to obey Him, the fruits of sacramental Baptism may be had through these two other means. We must remember that while we are bound by the Sacraments, God is not, and He can pour out His graces in other ways.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly says concerning Baptism of desire:

“Should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Also we read concerning Baptism of Blood:

St. John Chrysostom
"As those baptized in water, so also those who suffer martyrdom are washed clean, [the later] in their own blood,"
St. Augustine

"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it." And this explains the verse, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints." For what is more precious than a death by which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundred fold?"

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus (Read 7665 times)

2Vermont

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

Nishant Xavier

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

Pax Vobis

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

Nishant Xavier

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

Pax Vobis

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

Mirari Vos

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

Pax Vobis

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

Pax Vobis

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

Nishant Xavier

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

Pax Vobis

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

Nishant Xavier

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

Pax Vobis

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

Nishant Xavier

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