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

Author Topic: Baptismofdesire.com  (Read 3756 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1239
  • Reputation: +395/-108
  • Gender: Male
Re: Baptismofdesire.com
« Reply #90 on: November 18, 2021, 06:11:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • DR, Following Aquinas here, I do think that "an explicit desire for the sacrament is not necessary for justification." Before the promulgation of the gospel, the transition only took place when Christ descended into Hell and liberated the Just from the limbo of the Fathers. Now, the transition can take place by the Sacrament of Baptism, BoD and BoB. Although the transition by BoD is not complete in the same way that the Sacrament of Baptism is.

    Angelus,


    First - thank you for the link: a beautiful presentation of the Summa!!! Great site. 

    Quote
    Before the promulgation of the gospel, the transition only took place when Christ descended into Hell and liberated the Just from the limbo of the Fathers. 


    No. The "transition" is a translation from being a child of wrath, son of Adam, to being a brother of Christ, a true son of God, in a state of grace and harmony with the King:


    Quote
    CHAPTER III.
    Who are justified through Christ.


     

    But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.

    Justification is spiritual rebirth and regeneration via the grace of the Holy Ghost, which effects the above translation into the Kingdom, spiritually, this side of the grave - for the OT saints, and the new. No one is justified after death; they must be justified before. 

    You speak of the Limbo of the Fathers, and their deliverance, after death, into the wonderful beatific vision of God, which awaited Our Lord's Incarnation, Death and Resurrection. Yet they were justified by the Holy Ghost when they were alive, or else they would have went straight to the torments of hell as culpable children of wrath.

    The only thing that changed after the promulgation of the gospel (Trent - "since the promulgation of the gospel") was the manner of justification before death:



    Quote
    CHAPTER IV.
    A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

     

    By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

    Now, the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, is required: the sacrament of baptism, or the desire for it, as in catechumens awaiting the fount. 

    The OT saints were justified by the  "Baptismus poenitentiae" mentioned by St. Thomas:


    Quote
    In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Spirit, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Spirit to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isa 4:4): If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning

    You are correct in that St. Thomas would recognize a baptismus poenitentiae even after the promulgation of the gospel. Were the master alive, I would ask him the same thing I ask you, and be instructed: "Trent indicates a change in the manner of justification "under the law of grace," or "since the promulgation of the gospel" - how can one now be justified in the same manner of the OT saints, via baptismus poenitentiae, without the sacrament of the new law or the desire for it?


    Perhaps the Master, not having the benefit of Trent - and the saint would have bowed to the instruction of God via the fathers of Trent - would now agree with me, and change his view.  

    Non enim omnes qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae (Roman 9:6)

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12083
    • Reputation: +4704/-781
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #91 on: November 18, 2021, 06:33:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Perhaps the Master, not having the benefit of Trent - and the saint would have bowed to the instruction of God via the fathers of Trent - would now agree with me, and change his view. 
    The rabid BODer, Lover of Truth, has this in his signature:

    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." - Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31519
    • Reputation: +18722/-4736
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #92 on: November 18, 2021, 06:46:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And I used to agree with Fr. Feeney's hypothetical, and you're right, it was only hypothetical, he did not believe it could ever happen. In that aspect I agree with him. It simply goes against Catholic reason for the infidel to die justified, but without the sacrament he cannot attain heaven. Why bother? One cannot be justified without the sacrament because Trent said that justification cannot be effected without the sacrament. There's no mystery to this, it's told to us in a very clear and blunt manner.

    I don't know but I believe people insist a BOD is a doctrine of the Church mainly because of the catechisms, which means they already have a preconceived idea implanted in the front of their mind, so that when they read Trent, their preconceived notion tricks them into reading meanings into Trent's teachings which the teachings simply do not say.

     

    I actually believe there's some confusion among these theologians regarding the notion of justification.  Trent seems to equate it with entering the state of sanctifying grace (although that might be speaking in terms of the normal course of things and not considering "exceptions") while some of these theologians refer to it as more a natural condition, where you cease to be an enemy of God from a natural perspective and develop all the appropriate dispositions necessry to receive the Sacrament.  So, for example, even in the Old Testament, the "just" entered a state in wich they were not punished and yet could not enter Heaven.  And the mechanism by which the OT just could become justified was widely disputed by the Church Fathers (some saying it was only through circuмcision, some that it was faith in the coming Messiah, and others even extenting it to the "noble" pagans).

    St. Ambrose, for instance, spoke of a condition in which unbaptized martyrs would be washed but not crowned (crowning being equated with the Kingdom of Heaven).  He also hoped, in the case of Valentinian, that he too could be "washed" (in a manner similar to these martyrs).  Pope St. Siricius explicitly stated that it was absolutely impossible even for those desiring Baptism to receive the "Kingdom".  Our Lord taught that those who had faith and were baptized would enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but that those who had not faith would be punished.  He quite deliberately left in an in-between state those who had faith but were not baptized (saying neither that they would be punished nor that they would enter the Kingdom).  St. Gregory nαzιanzen, similarly, distinguished between glory and punishment, saying that not all those who are good enough to be glorified/crowned are bad enough to be punished.

    There's a recurring theme here of a distinction between the free UNMERITED gift of entering the supernatural Kingdom and a natural state of not being bad enough to be punished, or being "washed" without being crowned (entering the Kingdom).  By this washing was not meant a true remission of sin per se, but, rather, a remission of the punishment due to sin.

    This is why I have concluded that people like, say, unbaptized martyrs (assuming there were any ... St. Ambrose seems to take it for granted that there were some) would enter a state of Limbo, where although they could not be "crowned" (as St. Ambrose says), equivalent to entering the Kingdom, they would be washed, have the punishment due to their sins remitted.  That is why baptized martyrs go straight to Heaven bypassing Purgatory, because the punishment due to their sins (which would otherwise have put them in Purgatory) is remitted by martyrdom.  There are a few instances where the Fathers spoke of "Baptism of Blood" with regard to those already baptized in water.

    So I have come firmly to believe in a sate of Limbo for those who are "justified" (in the natural sense of having the punishment due to their sins remitted) and yet who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism and the free gift of entry into the Kingdom.

    Even one of the EENS definitions states that the punishments of those who are not saved vary in proportioin to their sins.  I believe that these punishments can be mitigated by offsetting natural virtue.  Mind you not the guilt of grave sin itself, nor Original Sin, but the punishment due to these sins (two different things).  I think the greatest aversion people have against EENS and why they struggle with it and need to find a way to save the unbaptized is this false notion that even naturally virtuous infidels, those perhaps who gave their lives to save others, end up in the same monolithic cauldron of fire right next to Joe Stalin and Judas.  I believe that there can be varying degrees of eternal suffering, some very mild so that people suffer no more there than they migth in this life, and even degrees of happiness.  Compare perhaps relatively noble and naturally virtuous Protestants or Orthodox who tried to keep the Commandments and prayed regularly, etc. with blaspheming Satanists or serial killers or pedophiles.  I hold that the former will end up in a state where they will continue to love God in a natural way, similar to what they did in this life, and will not be blaspheming God right next to the Satanists in hell.  But because people have this false concept that a similar fate awaits all these people who can't enter the Kingdom due to not having been baptized, that would appear to most people to decidedly contradict the Justice and the Mecy of God.  So they find creative ways (i.e. BoD) to get these people into Heaven.

    If everyone is honest, they'll admit that the notion of BoD was NOT revealed.  It was (admittedly even by the Church Fathers) invented in order to reconcile the eternal punishemtnt of the natural virtuous with the eternal bliss of scoundrels.  St. Augustine spoke of the notion that some people lived wicked lives and were baptized on their death beds while others tried to lead virtuous lives and were snatched from life withou the Sacrament.  He made a profound statement regarding if you look for rewards, you will find only punishments, or something like that, which again is contrasting the notion that salvation is not a "reward", not something merited, and if you look at it that way, you will view the lack of salvation as a punishment.  But not entering the Kingdom is NOT a punishment.  Punishments are for actual transgressions.  People are not punished for Original Sin.  They merely to not receive the free gift of supernatural life.  Bear in mind that the supernatural state is not something owed to human beings.  We lack entirely a natural capacity to see God as He is in the beatific vision.  This is an elevation of our state.  That is in fact the chief argument St. Thomas made to reject the more severe Augustinian tradition that even unbaptized infants sufer in Hell.  St. Thomas said no.  Actually, the first one to argue against this position of St. Augustine was Abelard, who also, by the way, rejected Baptism of Desire.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8014/-3008
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #93 on: November 18, 2021, 06:53:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I actually believe there's some confusion among these theologians regarding the notion of justification.  Trent seems to equate it with entering the state of sanctifying grace (although that might be speaking in terms of the normal course of things and not considering "exceptions") while some of these theologians refer to it as more a natural condition, where you cease to be an enemy of God from a natural perspective and develop all the appropriate dispositions necessry to receive the Sacrament.  So, for example, even in the Old Testament, the "just" entered a state in wich they were not punished and yet could not enter Heaven.  And the mechanism by which the OT just could become justified was widely disputed by the Church Fathers (some saying it was only through circuмcision, some that it was faith in the coming Messiah, and others even extenting it to the "noble" pagans).

    St. Ambrose, for instance, spoke of a condition in which unbaptized martyrs would be washed but not crowned (crowning being equated with the Kingdom of Heaven).  He also hoped, in the case of Valentinian, that he too could be "washed" (in a manner similar to these martyrs).  Pope St. Siricius explicitly stated that it was absolutely impossible even for those desiring Baptism to receive the "Kingdom".  Our Lord taught that those who had faith and were baptized would enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but that those who had not faith would be punished.  He quite deliberately left in an in-between state those who had faith but were not baptized (saying neither that they would be punished nor that they would enter the Kingdom).  St. Gregory nαzιanzen, similarly, distinguished between glory and punishment, saying that not all those who are good enough to be glorified/crowned are bad enough to be punished.

    There's a recurring theme here of a distinction between the free UNMERITED gift of entering the supernatural Kingdom and a natural state of not being bad enough to be punished, or being "washed" without being crowned (entering the Kingdom).  By this washing was not meant a true remission of sin per se, but, rather, a remission of the punishment due to sin.

    This is why I have concluded that people like, say, unbaptized martyrs (assuming there were any ... St. Ambrose seems to take it for granted that there were some) would enter a state of Limbo, where although they could not be "crowned" (as St. Ambrose says), equivalent to entering the Kingdom, they would be washed, have the punishment due to their sins remitted.  That is why martyrs go straight to Heaven bypassing Purgatory, because the punishment due to their sins (which would otherwise have put them in Purgatory) is remitted by martyrdom.

    So I have come firmly to believe in a sate of Limbo for those who are "justified" (in the natural sense of having the punishment due to their sins remitted) and yet who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism and the free gift of entry into the Kingdom.

    Even one of the EENS definitions states that the punishments of those who are not saved vary in proportioin to their sins.  I believe that these punishments can be mitigated or offset by offsetting natural virtue.  Mind you not the guilty of grave sin itself, nor Original Sin, but the punishment due to these sins (two different things).  I think the greatest aversion people have against EENS and why they struggle with it and need to find a way to save thei unbaptized is this false notion that even naturally virtuous infidels, those perhaps who gave their lives to save others, end up in the same monolithic cauldron of fire right next to Joe Stalin and Judas.  I believe that there can be varying degrees of eternal suffering, some very mild so that people suffer no more there than they migth in this life, and even degrees of happiness.  Compare perhaps relatively noble and naturally virtuous Protestants or Orthodox who tried to keep the Commandments and prayed regularly, etc. with blaspheming Satanists or serial killers or pedophiles.  I hold that the former will end up in a state where they will continue to love God in a natural way, similar to what they did in this life, and will not be blaspheming God right next to the Satanists in hell.  But because people have this false concept that a similar fate awaits all these people who can't enter the Kingdom due to not having been baptized, that would appear to most people to decidedly contradict the Justice and the Mecy of God.  So they find creative ways (i.e. BoD) to get these people into Heaven.

    If everyone is honest, they'll admit that the notion of BoD was NOT revealed.  It was (admittedly even by the Church Fathers) invented in order to reconcile the eternal punishemtnt of the natural virtuous with the eternal bliss of scoundrels.  St. Augustine spoke of the notion that some people lived wicked lives and were baptized on their death beds while others tried to lead virtuous lives and were snatched from life withou the Sacrament.  He made a profound statement regarding if you look for rewards, you will find only punishments, or something like that, which again is contrasting the notion that salvation is not a "reward", not something merited, and if you look at it that way, you will view the lack of salvation as a punishment.  But not entering the Kingdom is NOT a punishment.  Punishments are for actual transgressions.

    Lad-

    Too bad you weren’t around to straighten out all the poor confused theologians.

    That way, you could do to them what the modernists didn’t to tge Denzinger: Chip our the last 500 years of doctrinal development, in order to recreate theology which would set them in the path to Feeneyite.

    And you seem oblivious of the pride which speaks in such ways.

    Inventing new positions (and “correcting” theologians to get it to “fit”) is definitely your specialty.
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31519
    • Reputation: +18722/-4736
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #94 on: November 18, 2021, 06:58:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lad-

    Too bad you weren’t around to straighten out all the poor confused theologians.

    That way, you could do to them what the modernists didn’t to tge Denzinger: Chip our the last 500 years of doctrinal development, in order to recreate theology which would set them in the path to Feeneyite.

    And you seem oblivious of the pride which speaks in such ways.

    Inventing new positions (and “correcting” theologians to get it to “fit”) is definitely your specialty.

    Johnson, you contribute absolutely nothing to this discussion.  Meanwhile, you are "correcting" all the theologians who felt there is nothing wrong with Vatican II or the New Mass, in fact you are "correcting" the V2 popes and the entire episcopal hierarchy, the teaching Church.  You regularly correct the "confusion" of the SSPX.  Simple fact is that there have been several matters in theological history which have been widely disputed and about which no theological consensus has been reached, this issue being first and foremost.  There have been others, such as the relationship between grace and free will.  Another is the notion of how the OT just were ultimately saved (as I described ... with widely varying opinions among the Church Fathers ... with a couple even holding that they were temporariily raised back to life and baptized).  Yet another is the question of what happens in the case of a heretical pope.  In fact, your assertion that there's no confusion on the issue, but that yours is the only correct opinion is the height of hubris.  So, begone, hypocrite.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12083
    • Reputation: +4704/-781
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #95 on: November 18, 2021, 07:06:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SJ is like all BODers who cannot acknowledge the obvious contradictions between Trent and the catechisms/what some of the Fathers taught. I think it goes back to what I said re preconceived ideas. It's amazing how that works so well, it is actually blinding.
    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11767
    • Reputation: +8014/-3008
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #96 on: November 18, 2021, 07:15:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • SJ is like all BODers who cannot acknowledge the obvious contradictions between Trent and the catechisms/what some of the Fathers taught. I think it goes back to what I said re preconceived ideas. It's amazing how that works so well, it is actually blinding.

    Wow.
    Disagreeing with Ladislaus is heretical and blasphemous!

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 31519
    • Reputation: +18722/-4736
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #97 on: November 18, 2021, 07:22:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1. God exists.
    2. God “is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
    3. The Holy Trinity.
    4. The Incarnation.

    He says explicit belief in the first two is certainly necessary, while explicit belief in the last two is necessary according to the more common and more probable opinion, but he explains why the contrary opinion is “also quite probable.”

    And I strongly disagree with St. Alphonsus that Rewarder God theory is probable.  He only held that out of respect for De Lugo, with whom he was friends.  Simple fact of the matter is that for the first 1500 years of Church history, there was unanimous dogmatic consensus that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation.  If that wasn't a dogmatic teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing.  Rewarder God theory was invented to explain the plight of those in the recently-discovered new world, based on emotional reasoning such as was expressed by Father Cekada (that he can't possibly come to accept that all thoe people were lost).  There's no actual theological foundation for it; it's rooted entirely in emotional considerations.  There's nothing probable about that opinion.

    In fact, the Holy Office explicitly rejected Rewarder God theory, stating that it was necessary by necessity of means to believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.  I'll assume that St. Alphonsus was not aware of that ruling from the Holy Office.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8510
    • Reputation: +5101/-1580
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #98 on: November 18, 2021, 08:39:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    1. God exists.
    2. God “is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
    3. The Holy Trinity.
    4. The Incarnation.

    He says explicit belief in the first two is certainly necessary, while explicit belief in the last two is necessary according to the more common and more probable opinion, but he explains why the contrary opinion is “also quite probable."
    This is misleading because you fail to explain the difference between "explicit" (saying your belief out loud) vs "implicit" (not openly speaking your belief).  Even if you argue that #3 and #4 do not require explicit/verbal expression of this belief, it is "de fide" that one is absolutely required to have implicit/interior belief of these 2 doctrines.  Even St Alphonsus said so.


    The heresy of the modernists is to say that belief in #1 and #2 INCLUDES the belief in #3 and #4.  But this is totally anti-catholic and anti-St Alphonsus.

    The debate over the necessity of explicit/open/clear/public Faith in Catholicism can be solved from Scripture, as Christ told us that a "confession of Faith" (i.e. public/open) is necessary:

    Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. (Matt 10:32-33)

    And I say to you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. 9But he that shall deny me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God. (Luke 12: 8-9)

    Those who receive the sacrament of baptism have confessed their allegiance to Christ BEFORE MEN.  Those who only have implicit faith (who have not expressed their Faith to men) have not earned salvation.  They certainly haven't denied Christ but they also haven't confessed allegiance to Him.  Thus, as Ladislaus has pointed out, St Ambrose's teaching (washed but not crowned) that these "BOD in-betweeners" would not suffer hell, but also would not gain heaven.  Thus, Limbo.

    Offline Tradman

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 744
    • Reputation: +537/-193
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Baptismofdesire.com
    « Reply #99 on: November 18, 2021, 08:52:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "This is why I have concluded that people like, say, unbaptized martyrs (assuming there were any ... St. Ambrose seems to take it for granted that there were some)..."

    Seems the first thing the Church would do before the canonization process is verify baptism.