Alcuin, I think the fellow in the video clip misrepresents BOD. He says the catechumen can receive baptism without water, referring to the Sacrament of Baptism. This isn't the explanation given by the theologians nor Pope Pius XII, most recently.

The point he is making is the same as I said in the current thread on CI  General Discussion entitled A Fourth Baptism :

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: bowler

In order to believe your own made theology you have to ignore
All of the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church including St. John Chrysosotom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine that taught clearly that a  catechumen that dies unbaptized will not be saved.

In reality you are ignoring ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more) since you believe that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

Bowler, it's interesting to note here that you are referencing the Church fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, and the Catechism of Trent to support your argument against baptism of desire,

Strawman.

You have a habit of not quoting what I said, so you can change it to whatever lie you want to teach. Here is what I said:

Quote from: bowler

In order to believe your own made theology you have to ignore
All of the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church including St. John Chrysosotom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine that taught clearly that a  catechumen that dies unbaptized will not be saved.

In reality you are ignoring ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more) since you believe that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

Even worse, you have to reject all of the popes who made the clear dogmatic decrees that I follow exactly as they are clearly written:


While we are at it, here is an additional list of decrees from popes that you also reject/ ignore  in your believing that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved:

 

What I wrote is actually just the same thing that I had said to in another thread that your belief that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved, goes against all of the ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more). What you believe is novel teaching of implicit faith, which says that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

That has NOTHING to do with baptism of blood, or baptism of desire of the Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more)!

He correctly sates that the real theory of baptism of desire (which he does not believe) was a harmless theory since it was so restricted, which is 100% correct.

And as far as baptism of blood, there are no quotes about a martyred catechumen saint in the last 1700+ years. Very restrictive theories.

Quote from: bowler

He correctly sates that the real theory of baptism of desire (which he does not believe) was a harmless theory since it was so restricted, which is 100% correct.

Are you actually trying to have us believe that St. Thomas Aquinas didn't believe in baptism of desire, but yet he still went out of his way to write this in his Summa?

“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." (Summa Theologica; Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?)

Well what are ya going to believe?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm
I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation[/u]. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Romans 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.

Quote from: bowler

He correctly sates that the real theory of baptism of desire (which he does not believe) was a harmless theory since it was so restricted, which is 100% correct.

Are you actually trying to have us believe that St. Thomas Aquinas didn't believe in baptism of desire, but yet he still went out of his way to write this in his Summa?

There you go again misquoting me so that you can teach your lies.
And this time you edited out where I even said that you lied by misquoting me!

The point he is making is the same as I said in the current thread on CI  General Discussion entitled A Fourth Baptism :

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: bowler

In order to believe your own made theology you have to ignore
All of the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church including St. John Chrysosotom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine that taught clearly that a  catechumen that dies unbaptized will not be saved.

In reality you are ignoring ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more) since you believe that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

Bowler, it's interesting to note here that you are referencing the Church fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, and the Catechism of Trent to support your argument against baptism of desire,

Strawman.

You have a habit of not quoting what I said, so you can change it to whatever lie you want to teach. Here is what I said:

Quote from: bowler

In order to believe your own made theology you have to ignore
All of the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church including St. John Chrysosotom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine that taught clearly that a  catechumen that dies unbaptized will not be saved.

In reality you are ignoring ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more) since you believe that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

Even worse, you have to reject all of the popes who made the clear dogmatic decrees that I follow exactly as they are clearly written:


While we are at it, here is an additional list of decrees from popes that you also reject/ ignore  in your believing that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved:

 

What I wrote is actually just the same thing that I had said to in another thread that your belief that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved, goes against all of the ALL of the Church Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more). What you believe is novel teaching of implicit faith, which says that a person with no desire to be baptized, martyred, or a Catholic, can be saved.

That has NOTHING to do with baptism of blood, or baptism of desire of the Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more)!

He correctly states that the real theory of baptism of desire (which he does not believe) was a harmless theory since it was so restricted, which is 100% correct.

If I may a few facts on St Thomas, from the Dimonds book , "Outside the Church There is absoultly No Salvation"...

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

 

     St. Thomas Aquinas, despite all of his fabulous writing and learning about the Catholic Faith, being a fallible human being, was wrong on many points, including his explicit statement in the Summa Theologica that “The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.”[ccxli]  One scholar noted that the book St. Thomas was writing when he died was called The Compendium of Theology, in which are found at least nine explicit errors.[ccxlii]  In fact, “over thirty years ago, Dr. Andre Daignes, Professor of Philosophy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, pointed out twenty-four formal errors in the Summa of St. Thomas.”[ccxliii]  This simply proves again that the theological speculations of even our greatest sainted theologians are just that – fallible speculations.  Only St. Peter and his successors, the popes, when speaking from the Chair of Peter, have the unfailing faith.

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra:
“So, this gift of truth AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR…”[ccxliv]

 

     In Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, Art. 11, St. Thomas tries to explain his belief in baptism of desire and blood.  He tries to explain how there can be “three baptisms” (water, blood and desire) when St. Paul declares in Ephesians 4:5 that there is only one.  He says:

 

“The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ’s Passion and of the Holy Ghost.”[ccxlv]  

 

     With all due respect to St. Thomas, this is a feeble attempt to answer the objection as to how there can be “three baptisms” when God reveals that there is only one.  It is feeble because St. Thomas says that the other two baptisms, desire and blood, are included in the baptism of water; but this is false.  One who receives baptism of water doesn’t receive baptism of desire and baptism of blood, even according to the baptism of desire advocates.  Therefore, it is false to say, as St. Thomas does, that the other two baptisms are included in the baptism of water; they most certainly are not.  

 

     Furthermore, in teaching the theory of baptism of desire, St. Thomas repeatedly admitted that neither is a sacrament.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, A. 11, Answer 2: “As stated above, a sacrament is a kind of sign.  The other two [baptism of desire and blood], however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect.  Consequently they are not sacraments.”[ccxlvi]

 

     The fierce baptism of desire advocate, Fr. Laisney, admits the same in his book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9:

 

Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments.  The theologians, following St. Thomas… call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of baptism… yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”[ccxlvii]

 

     But the Council of Trent (a few centuries after St. Thomas, in 1547) infallibly defined as a dogma that THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM is necessary for salvation!

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[ccxlviii]

 

     So, whom does one follow, St. Thomas or the infallible Council of Trent?  Compare the two:

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “… it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification…”

 

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[ccxlix]

 

      There is an obvious contradiction here.  The fallible St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is possible to obtain salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, while the infallible Council of Trent defines that the sacrament is necessary for salvation.  And what does “necessary” mean?  According to Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj. 3 in St. Thomas’ own Summa Theologica,  “that is necessary without which something cannot be (Metaph. V).”[ccl]  Thus, “necessary” means without which something cannot be.  Thus, salvation cannot be – it is impossible – without the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide, Council of Trent).  Catholics must accept this truth and reject St. Thomas’s fallible opinion in the Summa Theologica on baptism of desire.

 

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”[ccli]

 

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950:

 “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”
     

Quote from: Director

If I may a few facts on St Thomas, from the Dimonds book , "Outside the Church There is absoultly No Salvation"...

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

     St. Thomas Aquinas, despite all of his fabulous writing and learning about the Catholic Faith, being a fallible human being, was wrong on many points, including his explicit statement in the Summa Theologica that “The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.”[ccxli]  One scholar noted that the book St. Thomas was writing when he died was called The Compendium of Theology, in which are found at least nine explicit errors.[ccxlii]  In fact, “over thirty years ago, Dr. Andre Daignes, Professor of Philosophy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, pointed out twenty-four formal errors in the Summa of St. Thomas.”[ccxliii]  This simply proves again that the theological speculations of even our greatest sainted theologians are just that – fallible speculations.  Only St. Peter and his successors, the popes, when speaking from the Chair of Peter, have the unfailing faith.
     

The Dimonds have a faulty understanding of Catholicism. Throughout the history of the Church, when someone published something on faith and morals, it was immediately scrutinized for errors. If errors were found, the Church would either declare what those errors were for the faithful (as was done with the Summa), or if the errors were too numerous, the Church would condemn the book and add it to the Index of forbidden books. For the Summa, the Church clarified the errors that were found, but did not condemn the entire Summa. The teaching on baptism of desire was not considered an error.

The Church considers the Summa the most trustworthy Catholic reference next to Scripture itself, as Pope Pius XI states in his encyclical On St. Thomas Aquinas in 1923:

"Again, could there be any more manifest indication of the very high esteem in which this Doctor (St. Thomas Aquinas) is held by the Church than the fact that the Fathers of Trent resolved that two volumes only, Holy Scripture and the Summa Theologica, should be reverently laid open on the altar during their deliberations?" On St. Thomas Aquinas, Studiorum Ducem, Pope Pius XI, June 29, 1923


The Dimond's last statement above about only Popes speaking from the chair of Peter have unfailing faith, is to say only papal declarations are infallible. This is a direct denial of the ordinary magisterium defined by the First Vatican Council, which stated:

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

The whole discussion above is moot. It is of no use, irrelevant. The person in the video is talking about implicit faith, the belief that someone can be saved who does not want to be baptized, nor be a Catholic, nor martyred for the Faith, nor has any belief in Christ and the Trinity.

The theory of Implicit Faith goes against ALL of the Church Fathers and Doctors, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more). It is a novel teaching with no basis in tradition. It has NOTHING to do with baptism of blood, or baptism of desire of the Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent (and much more)!


The person in the video makes a big point of saying that that the real theory of baptism of desire (which he does not believe) was a harmless theory since it was so restrictive. He is focusing his entire presentation on the theory of Implicit Faith. So what is the point of discussing St. Thomas Aquinas? He didn't teach Implicit Faith. The person correctly states over and over that the restrictive theory of baptism of desire of St. Thomas is a harmless theory.

The same goes for the theory of baptism of blood. Those two theories as taught in some quotes from the Fathers and Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Thomists were harmless theories since they were so restrictive.

Personally, I have never known anyone with a relative or that knew of any catechumen that died before he could be baptized. And as far as baptism of desire, there are no quotes about a martyred catechumen saint in the last 1700+ years. Very restrictive theories.

The point of the video (and the point of this thread is the video),  is the theory of implicit faith, the belief that someone can be saved who does not want to be baptized, nor be a Catholic, nor martyred for the Faith, nor has any belief in Christ and the Trinity.