Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 32

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus  (Read 39797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mirari Vos

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

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« 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?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« 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.
Logged

Offline Nishant Xavier

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

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« 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".
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 32
« previous next »