Author Topic: Does "baptism of desire" grant the grace of baptismspiritual rebirth? (Read 14159 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #45 on:** April 24, 2014, 07:41:34 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Secondly, the word voto has a very specific meaning in Catholic theology before and after, also in the Council itself - it always referred to the reception of the sacramental effect, and never to a mere disposition, would you dispute this? - in this case the effect being the translation from the state of death to the state of grace. You need to prove both of these wrong, for your idea to work.

No, I don't see it that way. There's are specific canons in Trent which refer to the fact that cooperation of the will is necessary for justification. That's how the key passage in Trent is to be interpreted, the requirement that there be BOTH the Sacrament and the cooperation of the will, the votum. That doesn't mean that the Sacramental effect can be had with the votum ALONE in this case, just that the votum is required in addition to the Sacrament. I'll have to dig up the Trent Canons to show this particular emphasis.

Don't you think it odd that if Trent were teaching BoD that it was completely silent about BoB? Of course that's odd. If you read the passage that way, then you basically have to say that there can be no justification via BoB .... unless you reduce BoB to BoD. But most BoB theologians claim that it works differently, in a quasi ex opere operato manner. You take the canons in Trent regarding the need for cooperation of the will for the justification to happen in Baptism along with its silence in the key passage about BoB, and it's absolutely plain as day that Trent did not teach BoD.

Finally, if you take the "or" as a disjunctive "either ... or", you would have to say that justification can be had by Baptism without the votum ... which is condemned as heretical in the later canons.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #46 on:** April 24, 2014, 07:47:47 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Thirdly, buried with Christ (cf. Col 2:11-12 for e.g.) always refers to water baptism in Scripture (you are "buried" when you are immersed or sprinkled with water, which is what baptism signifies, and what it effects) and Trent adopts it in the same sense. Trent's passage explains it is specifically talking of those who are "buried with Christ".

That's fine, but even justification via BoD (granting its existence) happens BY the Sacrament of Baptism. This is why you have that second part after the definition of spiritual rebirth, explaining that this rebirth happens by means of Baptism, reinforcing the necessity of the Sacraments. Trent teaches very clearly that justification must have as its instrumental cause the SACRAMENT of Baptism -- it makes no exceptions for BoD. Consequently it's still the Sacrament of Baptism that would be working through BoD. By adding the reference to Baptism Trent does NOT say that "the kind of rebirth that happens in the Sacrament of Baptism" leads to perfect innocent. Besides, if it doesn't then it cannot rightly be called "rebirth".

Honestly, it should be a simple thing to say that St. Thomas' speculation regarding how BoD works was just plain wrong.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** April 24, 2014, 07:50:10 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Fourthly, let's think this through. What is the status of a Catholic, say who has just recovered the grace of justification by penance? He is in the state of grace, yet secondary effects of sin, called debt of punishment, remain to be expiated in purgatory. This is the exactly analogous state of the person justified by baptism of desire. Justified and in the state of grace, with attachments remaining to be purified, which shows there is no incoherence in such a thing.

That reasoning is incorrect. Again, you keep making analogies between Baptism and Penance while ignoring the differences. NEVER has Penance been referred to as a "rebirth"; it's not. Baptism, however, IS a rebirth, and Trent teaches that justification cannot happen without rebirth, defining rebirth as the restoration to complete innocence.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #48 on:** April 24, 2014, 07:57:22 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

I understand you speculate that this may be the case, and I'm glad to know it, but Catholic teaching seems to me to preclude it. For theology on indulgences is clear is that only those in the state of grace can obtain the remission of temporal punishment, moreover that temporal punishment can be remitted only by meritorious works, not works done without faith in a natural state, and of course this only after the guilt has been forgiven. To be saved, it is necessary to have no attachment to sin, even venial sin, as the condition for gaining a plenary indulgence shows. In addition, since there is no particular work here to which it is attached, desire must supply for this, and therefore the intensity of contrition, as the Doctors teach, must be very great. Only then could a person receive the remission of all guilt and of all punishment. Martyrs for example, for they give to God the most perfect act of love, according to traditional teaching, will go straight to heaven even without water baptism, receiving the remission of the entirety of eternal and temporal punishment.

I suspect that there's a difference between the type of temporal punishment due to sin for the just and the temporal punishment one might receive in hell for sins. Actually, I suspect that the pain of sense in hell (which I refer only loosely to as "temporal" punishment) isn't temporal punishment at all but eternal punishment (temporal meaning ... for a certain time). So I may have mixed the terms, but it seems to me that naturally virtuous activities could mitigate the eternal sufferings of sense (so perhaps I should have referred to the pain of sense more generically). Again, I'm only speculating here. I just find it hard to imagine that two people who are damned for the same single sin (all else being equal) and differ only in that one did very little good in his life while the other did much (fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.) ... I find it difficult to imagine that the one would not suffer in less with both having committed exactly the same sin that led to their damnation.

So, for instance, I feel that an unbaptized martyr would enter into a veritable limbo-like state, for the suffering of senses in hell would be wiped away by this. This is as plausible as any other speculation regarding BoB.

Ambrose · « **Reply #49 on:** April 24, 2014, 11:37:29 PM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ambrose
To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy. For those that reject this de fide teaching of the Church, you place your soul in grave peril.

Is the de fide teaching limited to actual catechumens and martyrs?

The de fide teaching only applies to explicit Baptism of Desire. When the Holy Office explained this teaching in the 1949 letter, Suprema Haec Sacra, it referenced the Council of Trent as teaching explicit Baptism of Desire. It is for this reason that anyone who denies Baptism of Desire professes a heresy against the Faith.

Regarding implicit Baptism of Desire, the Holy Office corrects the Saint Benedict Center for this error against the Faith, but does not accuse them of heresy. The reason is that the Saint Benedict Center in its publication reviewed by the Holy Office had not denied Baptism of Desire itself, rather the Church's teaching on implicit Baptism of Desire.

Msgr. Fenton explains:

Quote

The most important error contained in that article was a denial of the possibility of salvation for any man who had only an implicit desire to enter the Catholic Church. There was likewise bad teaching on the requisites for justification, as distinguished from the requisites for salvation. The first of these faults has been indicated in a previous issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review.[12]

The teaching on implicit Baptism of Desire must be believed as it is both authoritative teaching of the Pope's ordinary magisterium, (Mystici Corporis), and is also certain doctrine as this teaching is taught by the consensus of the theologians.

If a Catholic denies implicit Baptism of Desire as explained by the Holy Office letter, he would objectively commit a mortal sin, but would not be outside the Church.