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

Author Topic: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus  (Read 39689 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #150 on: February 24, 2021, 03:46:23 PM »
My question has nothing to do with baptism.  God told Jonah to tell the Ninevites to repent of their sins, not to be circuмcized and join Israel (which might come later).  Many pagans "become christian" (i.e. protestant) by repenting first, then later, they are baptized.  For non-catholics, it seems there's a way to be "justified" (maybe that's not the right word), apart from baptism.  Am I way off?

Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #151 on: February 24, 2021, 05:17:06 PM »
My question has nothing to do with baptism.  God told Jonah to tell the Ninevites to repent of their sins, not to be circuмcized and join Israel (which might come later).  Many pagans "become christian" (i.e. protestant) by repenting first, then later, they are baptized.  For non-catholics, it seems there's a way to be "justified" (maybe that's not the right word), apart from baptism.  Am I way off?
Justification in Trent means you go straight to heaven if you die two seconds after being justified by the sacrament baptism. You receive the indelible mark and original sin and all your actual sins are blotted out.


Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #152 on: February 24, 2021, 05:35:59 PM »
All that is needed is the will, and God provides the water even to a low life gangster Jew like Dutch Schultz (nothing was added by me to this article but this headline:



There is the most interesting story of the deathbed conversion of the notorious Jєωιѕн mobster Dutch Schultz (you can read the whole article at http://www.killthedutchman.net/chapter_IX.htm Here's a snippet:

The controversy surrounding Dutch Schultz hardly ended with his burial, of course. The funeral was barely over when the great debate began: what right did that man have to be laid to rest with the rites of the Catholic Church? John A. Toomey, S.J., took up the problem in the Catholic weekly, America, noting at the outset that there were thousands of people saying that "if a guy like that can go to heaven there won't be anybody in hell.", But the article went on:


To these thousands, glaring contradictions appeared to be involved. Here was the Catholic Church, which always had impressed on her children a horror of even the slightest sin; which had ceaselessly warned them concerning the danger of presuming on the chances of a death-bed conversion, which had ever inculcated high ideals in asceticism, in selflessness, in heroic virtue; here was the Catholic Church beckoning into her fold a man who through his entire life had represented everything which the Church abhorred and condemned
"Dutch Schultz" with the angels! "Dutch Schultz" whose beer-trucks once rumbled over the Bronx, whose gorillas blustered through the sidewalks! "Dutch Schultz" associating with the holy saints in Heaven!

He to get the same reward as valiant souls who have clung to the Faith through a ceaseless hurricane of trial and temptation. It seemed more than unjust. It seemed ridiculous, preposterous, almost laughable.

But it may not be so laughable after all. There were a number of things not taken into account by the ... judges. One little thing they missed completely was the fact that there is just One in the entire universe Who is capable of accurately judging the complex skein of a man's life. The influence of bad example, of environment in general: of heredity; the lack of religious training; the exact strength of temptations. ... That One is God Almighty. No one else can even begin to do the job.

Another element that appeared to be fumbled was the interesting truth that the time of mercy for sinners does not expire until the moment of death; that there is no crime and no series of crime....which God will not forgive, this side of eternity, to the truly contrite of heart.

The dynamic power of Divine Grace to move the most obdurate heart to repentance was also omitted from the consideration Indeed, the intimate and essential connection of grace with final salvation is widely overlooked. ...

Other important bits of evidence were neglected as the clamorous verdict was reached: for example, the fact that nothing happens in this world without the permission of God. The reason "Schultz" was not killed instantly was because it was God's will that he be not killed instantly, and so he was conscious the morning after, and able to receive the grace of conversion, a grace that comes from God

If "Schultz's" conversion was sincere it means that God gave him a last chance to save his soul, and that "Dutch" took advantage of the offer. It does not mean that God, or His Church, condoned the evil life of "Schultz" but that ... God judged he should be given another opportunity to save his soul....

After all, Heaven belongs to God. If He wants "Dutch Schultz" to be there, it is difficult to see what we can do about it. Perhaps, instead of worrying about "Schultz" a somewhat more profitable occupation for us would be to do a little more worrying about our own salvation--to make sure we get there ourselves. We may not be given the opportunity for a death-bed repentance. Relatively few are given that chance.
>

Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #153 on: September 03, 2023, 09:47:40 PM »
Bump. Will read another day when I have time.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Baptism of Desire not defined dogma, per theological consensus
« Reply #154 on: September 04, 2023, 08:19:06 AM »
Right, presumably if these post-Tridentine theoligians had believed BoD was taught or defined by Trent, they would ALL hold it to be de fide.  Consequently, there's disagreement here about whether Trent taught it.  Alternatively, some of them might hold that, "yeah, Trent mentioned it, but it didn't really define it or propose it for belief, mentioning the notion merely in passing."

So, despite the fact that some proponents of BoD claim that it's defined dogma, that is the minority opinion among theologians.

Father Cekada was trying to argue that Catholics MUST accept it under pain of grave sin, but he didn't notice that he was also at the same time demonstrating that it was a minority opinion that this was defined by the Church.

A doctrine doesn’t have to be designated as de fide in order for it to be sinful for denying it.