Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15458 times)

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #120 on:** February 06, 2020, 04:03:08 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on February 06, 2020, 03:56:40 PM

I can play that game too...

Saint Gregory of nαzιanzen teaches:

Saint Gregory says "you are speaking in riddles"...

St. Gregory was speaking of one who culpably neglects Baptism. Not at all comparable to a catechumen like Valentian, whom St. Ambrose and St. Thomas say were saved by Baptism of Desire. St. Augustine said Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes. Thus, he who has desired Baptism before his death with contrition and charity will be saved.
New Advent: "http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
The baptism of desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire."

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #121 on:** February 06, 2020, 04:22:40 PM »

Pope St. Pius X: 17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Catholic Encyclopedia: The baptism of blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."

The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.

Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)

· I St. John Chrystostome, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Panegyric on St. Lucianus, "Do not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvellous and astonishing remission of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their own blood."

Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily I: "But why does Christ say, "Ye shall be baptized," when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided."

· II. St. Basil, Church Father and Doctor of the Church (4th Century): Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV: "And ere now there have been some who in their championship of true religion have undergone the death for Christ's sake, not in mere similitude, but in actual fact, and so have needed none of the outward signs of water for their salvation, because they were baptized in their own blood. Thus I write not to disparage the baptism by water, but to overthrow the arguments of those who exalt themselves against the Spirit; who confound things that are distinct from one another, and compare those which admit of no comparison."

And note what St. Cyprian calls Dimondites, Aiders and Favorers of Heretics: St. Cyprian, Church Father (3^rd Century): The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXII: "Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favourers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood".

ascanio1 · « **Reply #122 on:** February 06, 2020, 04:26:43 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 06, 2020, 09:44:37 AM

Consider this one also: Are you bound to confess all your sins in number and kind by divine law in order to be forgiven? Yes.

But suppose you happen to be invincibly ignorant of a former sin, can you still be forgiven? If God applied your rigorist ways, then no.

But, because God is Merciful to those who show Mercy, and Loves those who love and desire the salvation of all, those who are sincerely contrite for all their sins - which universal contrition implicitly includes every former sin, even forgotten sins - can receive the remission of them all.

Actually I was taught by an FSSPX priest that, no, God does not automatically forgive the sins that a sinner may have forgotten to accuse himself of, sic et simpliciter.

God will forgive sins that a sinner may have forgotten only if:
1. the sinner makes an honest and intentional contrition for the sins that he may be forgetting, and
2. the priest explicitly forgives those sins that the sinner may have forgotten.

Compared to other members of this community I am "doctrine ignorant" but if the previous doctrine concerning the sacrament of confession (and absolution) is correct, then it would stand to logic to assume that also the sacrament of baptism (and salvation) cannot be implicit but must be - at least - specifically and intentionally desired.

Praeter · « **Reply #123 on:** February 06, 2020, 05:27:45 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 06, 2020, 03:54:05 PM

I challenge you to find anyone, before the very confused Fr. Feeney, who said a person that died in the state of grace, but unbaptized, might go to heaven.

Here's five:

POPE INNOCENT III: You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:Denzinger 413).

Pope Innocent III (12th Century): "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland." (Denzinger 388)

Pius XII: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives)

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church (12th century): Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism: “If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity..."

St. Thomas Aquinas: " I answer that, the sacrament of 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 yet 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 graces he prayed for.' " Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #124 on:** February 06, 2020, 05:36:14 PM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on February 06, 2020, 04:26:43 PM

Actually I was taught by an FSSPX priest that, no, God does not automatically forgive the sins that a sinner may have forgotten to accuse himself of, sic et simpliciter.

God will forgive sins that a sinner may have forgotten only if:
1. the sinner makes an honest and intentional contrition for the sins that he may be forgetting, and
2. the priest explicitly forgives those sins that the sinner may have forgotten.

Compared to other members of this community I am "doctrine ignorant" but if the previous doctrine concerning the sacrament of confession (and absolution) is correct, then it would stand to logic to assume that also the sacrament of baptism (and salvation) cannot be implicit but must be - at least - specifically and intentionally desired.

#1 is a given, but #2 is not necessary. Even #1 doesn't have to be explicit, however, since it's hard to have explicit contrition for something you don't know about. So #1 can be implicit. Now, the obligation remains to confess the sin if it later comes to mind, but the soul is already in a state of justification. With any Sacrament, there's matter and form, and a merely material omission of a sin due to forgetfulness does not compromise the formal integrity of the Sacrament, any more than a purely material heresy excludes someone from the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #125 on:** February 06, 2020, 05:44:11 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 06, 2020, 05:27:45 PM

Here's five:

POPE INNOCENT III: You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:Denzinger 413).

In another letter of similar authority, this same Pope taught that transubstantiation takes place so long as the priest merely thinks the words of consecrations. St. Thomas Aquinas later rightly took him to task for this error.

Also, you'll notice that this teaching of Innocent also condemns the position of St. Alphonsus that in cases of BoD the temporal punishment due to sin remains by declaring that such a one would IMMEDIATELY rush off to heaven without delay.

Of course, assuming the existence of a BoD, Innocent III would be correct, and St. Alphonsus in error. Initial justification is defined by Trent as a rebirth to such an extent that no vestige of sin remains ... so that it is impossible for there to be an initial justification that is not at the same time a complete rebirth which entails the remission of all sin and all punishment due to sin.

This further highlights the contradictions among those who believe in BoD. You get a different explanation of BoD for pretty much everyone who holds it. Here Innocent is claiming that it is a Baptism of Faith, a BoF, rather than a BoD.

You don't need any more proof that the Church has never defined BoD. When the Church defines something, she clearly teaches WHAT it is that must be believed about that something. How can you have a definition without any definition of terms? Only thing that all BoDers seem to agree on is that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation ... which of course is heresy. Very few BoDers can articulate how the Sacrament of Baptism remains necessary for salvation, as per Catholic dogma, in the case of BoD. Now, I could come up with an explanation if I believed in BoD, but 99% of them can't.

Finally, here is YET ANOTHER CASE where an understanding of BoD clearly entails EXPLICIT faith ... such as this priest had. Church Fathers who, the one or two who arguably believed in it for a time, all limited it to catechumens. 1917 Code of Canon Law speaks only of catechumens. St. Robert Bellarmine asked, "whether a catechumens who ... could be saved." This Jesuit innovation of extending BoD to those who have no faith in Baptism (as did this "priest") and no DESIRE to receive it ... is nothing short of a heretical denial of both EENS and of Tridentine Ecclesiology.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #126 on:** February 06, 2020, 05:52:28 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 06, 2020, 05:27:45 PM

Pius XII: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives)

Ah, yes, Pius XII, in the same allocution in which he opened the floodgates to Catholic birth control. Pius XII, who sponsored the first ecuмenical gatherings, who appointed Bugnini to begin his liturgical experimentations, who opened the floodgates to evolution, and who appointed nearly every bishop who would give us the wonders of Vatican II. No thanks.

Why should you care, anyway? You don't hold that even an Ecuмenical Council, with the Pope and all the bishops of the world teaching the Universal Church, would be preserved from error, now maintain that an Allocution (speech) to a bunch of midwives is somehow guaranteed to be free from error?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #127 on:** February 06, 2020, 06:05:04 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on February 06, 2020, 05:27:45 PM

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church (12th century): Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism: “If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity..."

Hugh of St. Victor was in a dispute with Abelard regarding BoD, so he wrote St. Bernard here. Of course you leave out the part where he says ...

Quote

So, believe me, it would be difficult to turn me aside from these two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them

This is a very tentative siding in favor of BoD because he falsely believed that St. Augustine and St. Ambrose believed in BoD. At that time, there was no wide availability of St. Augstine's works for them to know that St. Augustine vehemently reject his youthful speculation regarding BoD in his later days after battling the Pelagians and the Donatists. Some of the strongest statements in existence against BoD come from St. Augustine. St. Ambrose's oration is ambiguous at best; in another work, he explicitly rejected BoD.

So here we have St. Bernard tentatively siding with his mistaken notion that Augustine and Ambrose taught this. Reverence for St. Augustine was so great at this time that the Church found the need to condemn the proposition that the opinion of St. Augustine could be held no matter what the Church taught. After St. Bernard responded thusly, Hugh of St. Victor took up the position. He in turn influenced the proto-scholastic Peter Lombard. From there the opinion made it to St. Thomas. And then it went viral, as it were. But there's no Apostolic Tradition whatsoever to back up this piece of speculative theology.

On a side note, the aforementioned Abelard was also the first to reject St. Augustine's teaching that infants who die unbaptized suffer in hell, and the Church sided with him and made the doctrine of Limbo here own. Until Abelard, this position was universally held by theologians ... for about 700 years.

I've gone through this dozens of times already, the entire history of BoD, where it comes from, what it's authority is, etc.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #128 on:** February 06, 2020, 06:11:32 PM »

Quote from: XavierSem on February 06, 2020, 03:49:10 PM

Well said. These people don't understand Catholic Doctrine. It is universally known that the OT Just obtained the Grace of Justification through Perfect Love of God, ...

So you start by claiming that WE do not understand Catholic doctrine and then immediately bumble your way into claiming that the OT just were saved in the same manner as BoD works. Too bad for you that every single Church Father made a sharp distinction between how salvation worked in the OT and how it worked in the new economy after the establishment of the Sacraments and founding of the Church. Then you proceed to confound Baptism of Blood with Baptism of Desire. You're a theological hot mess and then have the audacity to lecture others that THEY do not understand Catholic doctrine. You bumble from one error to another on pretty much every other theological topic that you engage in.

Praeter · « **Reply #129 on:** February 07, 2020, 08:27:27 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 06, 2020, 03:55:10 PM

Here are only three of many:

1) Dogma:
Trent Session 7 / Decree on the Sacraments:
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Baptism is necessary for salvation with the twofold necessity of means and precept. Here’s how the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explains the two:

Quote

Catholic Encyclopedia: “Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is grounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

The salvific effect of baptism is the infusion of grace into the soul. This effect can be had, as the article says, by “an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.” I would add to that an act of supernatural faith. This is the theology of baptism as it was taught prior to Vatican II, and you can read more about it in any pre-Vatican II theological manual. You can also read about it in the 1949 Holy Office letter that condemned the errors of the Feeneyites.

Quote

Stubborn:

2) Scripture: Eph. 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

There is only one baptism. BOD and BOB are referred to as baptism because they can produce the necessary salvific effect of baptism without receiving the water.

Quote

Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) – 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."

You can read more about that in any pre-Vatican II theological manual.

Quote

Stubborn:
3) All Catechisms:
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

All Catechisms:

Catechism of Pius X:

Question: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Douay Catechism, 17 the century:

Question: Can a man be saved without baptism?

Answer: He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.

The Baltimore Catechism

Question: How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Answer: Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or of desire.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #130 on:** February 07, 2020, 08:30:50 AM »

Quote

Here's five:

Ok, but as Ladislaus points out, all those 5 quotes are personal opinion, and the reasons behind such opinions are debatable. You chastise Fr Feeney for going against doctrine, but 5 quotes you provided are not doctrine. So I can chastise them to the degree that you do so to Fr Feeney. Basically, it's opinion vs opinion.
.
Those who say that BOD is "doctrine" quote Trent, but since Trent only mentions it in passing, you have to rely on opinion to "fill in the gaps" for it to make sense. That's not how doctrine works. If it's not been clearly defined by the Church, then it's not doctrine, it's only opinion....which is fallible.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #131 on:** February 07, 2020, 08:35:16 AM »

XavierSem, for the 4th time, how does an invincibly ignorant person desire baptism (which desire Trent requires) if he does not know baptism exists?
.
Please respond in your own words, not some lengthy quotes, as you are the self-proclaimed expert here, and I am a lowly heretic.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #132 on:** February 07, 2020, 08:51:36 AM »

Quote

Question: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Praeter, the above is nothing more than a watered-down version of St Thomas' opinion. If people want to argue the above, I can accept such a liberal view (I don't accept the view, but I accept the historical reasons why it exists and why people would believe it). But just because it's in the catechism doesn't mean it's doctrine.
.
The problem is that you, and many others, want to apply the above to the invincibly ignorant or (worse) to those pagans or heretics in other religions. The above says that an IMPLICIT desire is necessary. IMPLICIT desire means an assumed desire, based on outward actions which support the desire.
.
As an example - a person walks into a restaurant and asks for a table. They have not EXPLICITLY ordered food to eat, but the desire is IMPLICIT since they are at a restaurant and waiting to order.
.
As an example - a person is taking catechism classes at a catholic church, or has been going to sunday mass at a catholic church for months in a row. Even though they have not EXPLICITLY said they desire to be baptized (in an open, public way), their actions are such than one can assume they have this desire.
.
IMPLICIT does NOT mean indirect, subtle, abstract, or hidden. IMPLICIT means it's assumed based on actions. (Only God knows if the desire is truly there), but you cannot have an IMPLICIT desire unless ACTIONS are taken so that an OUTSIDE party would assume such.
.
IMPLICIT desire of baptism is NOT part of being sorry for one's sins, nor in making an act of love of God (which is similar to being sorry for one's sins). Any human being can be sorry for their sins - this is part of the natural law. As Trent says, one cannot have the desire for baptism unless the Holy Ghost inspires it. One cannot have an IMPLICIT desire without ACTIONS taken towards joining the Church. An act of love of God or an act of contrition are not strictly catholic actions, so such do not fulfill an IMPLICIT desire for baptism.
.
Trent lays out the requirements for preparing for Baptism. If one does not fulfill these, they have not the proper desire for BOD, either EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY. If you want to follow what Trent says about BOD, then follow ALL of what it says. You can't add parts of Trent, plus quotes from other saints, to create doctrine. That's heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #133 on:** February 07, 2020, 08:53:02 AM »

So, Praeter or XavierSem, explain in your own words how Baptism remains necessary for salvation even in the case of a hypothetical Baptism of Desire. Trent could not have been more emphatic that Baptism is necessary for salvation. This explanation is in fact the reason why a Thomistic view of BoD is not in fact heretical ... as the Dimonds claim. I, who do not believe in Baptism of Desire, have articulated this several times, whereas 99% of BoDers effectively deny the dogma that Baptism is necessary for salvation (in their false non-Thomistic version of BoD).

Unfortuately, this very poor articulation of BoD has led to Pelagianism, whereby souls are saved ex opere operantis. If you're going to believe in BoD, then at least get this right.

Praeter · « **Reply #134 on:** February 07, 2020, 08:58:26 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 07, 2020, 08:30:50 AM

Ok, but as Ladislaus points out, all those 5 quotes are personal opinion, and the reasons behind such opinions are debatable.

Pax, you asked for one quote to support what I said. I gave you three quotes from Popes, one from the Universal Doctor of the Church, and threw in a fifth from another Saint.

Quote

You chastise Fr Feeney for going against doctrine, but 5 quotes you provided are not doctrine. So I can chastise them to the degree that you do so to Fr Feeney. Basically, it's opinion vs opinion.

The opinion of three popes and the universal doctor of the Church, vs. one from Fr. Feeney, whose position was condemned by the Church in the 1949 letter from the Holy Office. There is no equivalent between the two. And I could have provided a dozen more quotes that support what the Popes said.
The fact that there is minor difference concerning BOD, such as whether it removes all actual sin or not, is beside the point, since they all taught BOD.

Quote

Those who say that BOD is "doctrine" quote Trent, but since Trent only mentions it in passing, you have to rely on opinion to "fill in the gaps" for it to make sense. That's not how doctrine works. If it's not been clearly defined by the Church, then it's not doctrine, it's only opinion....which is fallible.

Do you realize that you're doing the same thing the Liberals and Modernists of the 19th century did?
You are departing from what everyone prior to Vatican II taught simply because the teaching you don't like was never infallibly defined. Are you a Traditional Catholic or a successor of the 19th century Modernists? If you are a traditional Catholic then act like one by accepting what was taught before Vatican II. Fr. Feeney was no different than Luther. He used his private interpretation of the Bible as the basis for rejecting the traditional teaching of the Church - going back to the earliest centuries.

Author Topic: EENS for baptized Christians (Read 15458 times)

Nishant Xavier

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Nishant Xavier

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

ascanio1

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Pax Vobis

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Ladislaus

Re: EENS for baptized Christians

Praeter

Re: EENS for baptized Christians