Author Topic: Catholic (vs. Heretical) Baptism of Desire (Read 17679 times)

Alcuin · « **Reply #90 on:** August 15, 2014, 06:51:45 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Ambrose,
Quote
Cushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.

Only that he was a champion of the modernist understanding of it, and thus, is one of your brethren.

He's actually their spiritual father - that's why they are Cushingites.

Ambrose · « **Reply #91 on:** August 15, 2014, 09:06:36 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Ambrose,
Quote
Cushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.

Only that he was a champion of the modernist understanding of it, and thus, is one of your brethren.

No, Cushing was an ecuмenist. He has nothing to do with this, but you are trying to tie us to him for the emotional effect it gives. I will deny it now and keep denying it. I could care less about Cushing, he was a stooge and a buffoon in the 1950's, and in my opinion, a stupid and arrogant man. By the 1960's he was openly praying with Protestants, and most likely a heretic.

If you want to accuse me of anything, call me a Catholic who learns from the Pope and the Holy Office. Cushing is nothing more than a side show here because you people just do not want to admit that your real problem is not Cushing it's with Pope Pius XII who approved the Holy Office Letter.

That is the crux of this matter, the Pope through the medium of the Holy Office in a published docuмent (therefore public and binding) on a matter of Faith explained a point of doctrine and corrected those in error.

The group of you will not submit to this Papal teaching, and you even go further by extending the original SBC error to a much more serious error of denying Baptism of Desire and Blood itself.

Histrionics · « **Reply #92 on:** August 15, 2014, 04:02:11 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Histrionics
Quick question for you Ladislaus; this seemed the appropriate place. You've outlined a formulation of BOD with which you wouldn't generally take exception (or at least would "leave alone" as it were), though you've mentioned that you personally still wouldn't accept it. With your fantastic defense of canonizations, General Councils, and universal disciplinary laws in mind, how do you square the 1917 Code with your own framework vis-a-vis ecclesiastical burial for Catechumens?

Again, notice that the 1917 Code speaks very specifically of Catechumens, which is perfectly in line with a Catholic understanding of BoD.

I've dealt with the 1917 Code before. As such, a code of law, it's disciplinary and not doctrinal. It's not defining anything. So, in the context of burials, for pastoral reasons, it allows for the possibility that a catechumen might be saved via BoD; it's contrary to the earlier discipline of the Church. So I have taken exception to the Dimonds who believe that even the limited, properly understood BoD, is heretical ... since the Church has always allowed the opinion. In fact, I consider that view to be schismatic. But, as per my previous post, the BoDer crusade isn't about the occasional catechumen who MIGHT be saved, but about undermining EENS. Just as there's no guaranteed that ANYONE who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, so there's no guarantee that any catechumen who's being buried by the Church is ACTUALLY saved, just that the Church leave it open as a possibility in the pastoral context. There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by BoD or that God would will any of His elect to be saved by this means when it's easily possible for Him to bring the Sacrament to any of His elect. I see BoD as speculative theology for which there's no actual or practical need and for which there's no actual proof.

So, if you want to believe that some catechumen or other who died without Baptism (which probably happens once in a blue moon) MIGHT be saved via BoD, then more power to you. But when people start talking about Great Thumb worshippers being saved via some distorted "BoD", that's when I have problems with you, and the Doctors of the Church are all ON MY SIDE on this matter, as is the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, once you start extending salvation to non-Catholics, you've got all of Vatican II in a nutshell, and LoT and Ambrose, who hold the same ecclesiology as Vatican II, are schismatic for rejecting Vatican II, since they have nothing to stand on.

Yes I did notice that, and wasn't baiting you with the question as I was only referring to catechumens in light of your BOD formulation in the original post of this thread. I don't know if dismissing it as simply a pastoral provision is sufficient insofar as it would seem to be an evil law (from your vantage point) as it's fanning the flame of doctrinal error at the very least. How do you personally square this away, as it seems analagous to what you accuse (I believe quite rightly) those who reject the Church's universal laws of doing?

JPaul · « **Reply #93 on:** August 15, 2014, 07:30:41 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: J.Paul
Ambrose,
Quote
Cushing has nothing to do with our defense of Catholic Teaching on Baptism of Baptism of desire and Baptism of Blood.

Only that he was a champion of the modernist understanding of it, and thus, is one of your brethren.

No, Cushing was an ecuмenist. He has nothing to do with this, but you are trying to tie us to him for the emotional effect it gives. I will deny it now and keep denying it. I could care less about Cushing, he was a stooge and a buffoon in the 1950's, and in my opinion, a stupid and arrogant man. By the 1960's he was openly praying with Protestants, and most likely a heretic.

If you want to accuse me of anything, call me a Catholic who learns from the Pope and the Holy Office. Cushing is nothing more than a side show here because you people just do not want to admit that your real problem is not Cushing it's with Pope Pius XII who approved the Holy Office Letter.

That is the crux of this matter, the Pope through the medium of the Holy Office in a published docuмent (therefore public and binding) on a matter of Faith explained a point of doctrine and corrected those in error.

The group of you will not submit to this Papal teaching, and you even go further by extending the original SBC error to a much more serious error of denying Baptism of Desire and Blood itself.

It was at his instigation, and through his Roman connections that he obtained the letter, the purpose of which was to shield him from the charge of heresy made by a lowly parish priest who had the public ear. Rome called him to silence him about that, and about his preaching against the Jews, just as had been done by Cardinal Pacelli, to Father Coughlin. If you think that the modern Popes or Cushing's friends in the Holy Office were above acting upon political considerations, think again.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #94 on:** August 15, 2014, 10:39:00 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,
Quote
Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

Do you somehow disagree?

289 years after St. Thomas died, The Council of Trent disagreed...

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is in perfect agreement with the Council's decrees:
Quote
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

At the Council of Trent, the Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Holy Bible.

The teaching seems very clear to me.

It is interesting how posts get buried without being addressed, but I suppose that is just another tactic in avoiding the Truth.

With these two quotes alone, I feel completely comfortable in holding that Baptism of Desire is a Truth taught by the Catholic Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #95 on:** August 16, 2014, 12:35:41 AM »

The post has already been addressed.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

At the Council of Trent, the Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Holy Bible.

Keep carefully avoiding quoting St Thomas on the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church":

Quote from: Angelic Doctor

“After the Incarnation,” Saint Thomas says, “all men if they wish to be saved…are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation.” ...

“After the Incarnation…all men in order to be saved…are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (Summa Theol. , Part II-II, q. 2, art. 7; and idem art. 8)

As far as BOD/BOB st. Thomas actually only allowed the possibility for martyrs and catechumens "who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent (votum )"

Quote

For just as a man cannot live in the flesh unless he is born in the flesh, even so a man cannot have the spiritual life of grace unless he is born again spiritually. This regeneration is effected by Baptism: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” It is manifest that all are bound to receive baptism, and that without it there cannot be salvation for men. (Collat. de Pater. Ex. of the Ap. Creed , 10th Art. Summa , Part III, q. 68, art. 1, In Corp. )

Selective quoting may be misleading and no balanced.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #96 on:** August 16, 2014, 06:02:16 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The post has already been addressed.

Yes, the obstinate BoDers keep trotting out the same half dozen or so quotes and pretend that they have discovered some amazing new proof for their pseudo-dogma.

JPaul · « **Reply #97 on:** August 16, 2014, 08:17:32 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella
The post has already been addressed.

Yes, the obstinate BoDers keep trotting out the same half dozen or so quotes and pretend that they have discovered some amazing new proof for their pseudo-dogma.

Actually, that is an apt description of their soft doctrine, a pseudo dogma. And as I have described the position as being semi-universalist, not quite everyone is saved under this interpretation, but, just about anyone can be in the bus, even tough he be out of the bus.

The ancient doctrine of the fewness of the saved, has indeed according to them, become the doctrine of the fewness of the lost.

And the longer they go on, the more strenuously they defend this position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #98 on:** August 16, 2014, 08:45:59 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

If you think that the modern Popes or Cushing's friends in the Holy Office were above acting upon political considerations, think again.

Just look at what Pius XI did to the Cristeros, and one need say no more.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #99 on:** August 16, 2014, 08:53:37 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Actually, that is an apt description of their soft doctrine, a pseudo dogma.

They ignore most of the notes of infallibility when they characterize the actions of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It's not enough that something had become (arguably) part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, but it must be TAUGHT by that Magisterium as something that must be held as revealed truth to be held by all the faithful. It's simply not enough that a particular theological position be adopted far and wide by theologians. It has to be a matter of faith that's taught as mandatory to be held by all Catholics. There are a lot of theological matters (for instance, with regard to Sacramental theology and what constitutes validity) that are held nearly universally by all theologians, but these are widely accepted opinions and NOT dogmatic teaching. That's the distinction that fails to penetrate their minds due to the exaggeration of infallibility that comes from the dogmatic sedevacantists (formulated in their reaction against R&R).

Ambrosia rejects the distinctions made even by Msgr. Fenton regarding the infallible and non-infallible authentic Magisterium. She claims that everything in the authentic Magisterium must be given unconditional absolute intellectual assent. Wrong.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #100 on:** August 16, 2014, 12:24:21 PM »

Quote from: Saint Thomas Aquinas

The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #101 on:** August 16, 2014, 01:51:34 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Saint Thomas Aquinas
The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

Again reaffirms the necessity of Baptism for salvation, unlike the heretical language of LoT and Ambrose.

So will you pick out each BoD quote you can find and make a separate post of it?

St. Augustine, after his faith had matured through the trials of his battles with the Pelagians, rejected BoD because of its Pelagian consequences (which we see in full force today).

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #102 on:** August 16, 2014, 07:14:24 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Saint Thomas Aquinas
The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

In the quote I provided, Saint Thomas Aquinas is quoting Saint Augustine.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #103 on:** August 16, 2014, 07:57:59 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: Saint Thomas Aquinas
The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

In the quote I provided, Saint Thomas Aquinas is quoting Saint Augustine.

Obviously. But St. Augustine rejected BoD later on. There was this little issue at the time of St. Thomas that not ALL the works of St. Augustine or any of the Fathers for that matter were widely available.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #104 on:** August 16, 2014, 11:22:59 PM »

"Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." (Denzinger 388)