Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire (Read 35704 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #111 on:** March 20, 2014, 10:51:07 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Don't you? My mistake then. I was almost certain that you did.

You're right that I constantly distinguish between the two and have said that I wouldn't spent a lot of time arguing the point against someone who believed in BoD proper, and that my issue is with the kind of BoD that undermines EENS.

With regard to BoD proper, I have pondered the question and have read extensively about it, and find the reasons AGAINST it much more compelling than the reasons FOR it. In fact, I don't find any actual hard evidence for it. It appears to be nothing more than the product of speculative theology.

I find several compelling reasons to reject it.

But I acknowledge that the Church has long tolerated this opinion and do not presume to condemn those whom the Church has not condemned. So, as you can see, I am not a Dimond "dittohead", as it were. Dimonds say that even BoD for catechumens is heretical. I have multiple points of disagreement with them.

I have pondered these questions for years, have read voluminously about the subject, including from the original Greek and Latin of the Fathers, and many other sources. I have prayed about these questions, have asked God to enlighten me about it, to always lead me to the truth. I am not shooting from the hip here and just grinding some axe.

I have been accused of being a mindless Dimond follower, of having succuмbed to SBC propaganda, and even of rejecting BoD due to not wanting souls to be saved (by the local prophet). None of these could be further from the truth.

Cantarella · « **Reply #112 on:** March 20, 2014, 10:52:34 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Mithrandylan
As to what Ladislaus said, I guess we shouldn't be holding out much hope for the baptized who die before the age of reason (or the age of desire, as it were).

If BOD "simply" does not exist, then you disagree with Ladislaus who (his quoted post notwithstanding) has mentioned several times that he believes in BOD for the catechumen, just not for non-catechumens (he's quite fond of making this distinction, actually).

As SJB is wont to say, I don't think you know what you even believe.

The baptized who die before the age of reason go straight to Heaven (they are considered part of the elect). They do not have Original Sin, having this been remitted through Baptism; and they are not guilty of actual sins since they still don't reach the age of reason. Yet they do not desire it, which sort of throws that whole "we can't play baseball without a bat or a ball" analogy.

I do know what I believe and here it is:

There has been some theological speculation and fallible Church teaching on BOD / BOB. We find it specially in what was printed after Modernism, but actually it started taking form after the Peace of Westphalia in which catholic monarchs started watering down the Faith for the purpose of co-existing with Protestant nations. Always this teaching has been in regards to catechumens and martyrs only . Never BOD has been defined de fide. No theological conclusion is a dogma of faith however certain and evident the conclusion may be when the Church has not yet defined the question through her infallible magisterium.

Whereas I don't hold the BOD belief myself in any circuмstance (for the reason presented above, about God's omnipotence and promise to the elect), I would not have a problem with the concept of BOD strictly for catechumens only (+ explicit Catholic Faith), if it had not been because it was exploited by the modernist liberals as to allow salvation for Non- Catholics. So you have some non-negotiable and strict position which is somehow conceptually negotiable and lenient, and this belief of yours exists because of modernism. Think about that for a while.

I guess I should have said: I would not be discussing (instead of "I would not have a problem" with BOD strictly for catechumens only (+ explicit Catholic Faith), if it had not been because it was exploited by the modernist liberals as to allow salvation for Non- Catholics.

As for the baptized who die before the age of reason who cannot make an act of faith, here is the Church Infallible teaching:

Pope Innocent III Apostoli Letter on Baptism
For they maintain that it is useless to confer Baptism on infants. Our answer is that Baptism has taken the place of circuмcision. Therefore as "the soul of the circuмcised was not destroyed out of his people", so shall he who is born again of water and the Holy Spirit gain entrance into the kingdom of Heaven....But through the Sacrament of Baptism sin is remitted and entrance is gained to the kingdom of Heaven. For it would not be fitting that all little children, so many of whom die each day, perish without having some remedy for salvation provided for them by the merciful God, who wishes no one should perish.

Council of Trent, Canon 13 on Baptism
If anyone says that because infants do not make an act of faith, they are not to be numbered among the faithful after they receive Baptism and, moreover, that they are to be re baptized when they come to the use of reason; or if anyone says that it is better to omit the baptism of infants rather than to baptize, merely in the faith of the Church, those who do not believe by an act of their own: let it be anathema.

Pope Leo XIII Apostolic Letter Gratae Vehementer 1899
venerable Brethren, with pastoral zeal you deplore the now well known abuse which postpones the administration of Holy Baptism of infants for weeks, months, nay even for years, and you have done all in your power to banish this abuse. In truth, there is nothing more contrary to ecclesiastical laws, for not only does it, with unforgivable audacity, put it in evident danger the eternal salvation of many souls, but still more it undoubtly deprives them in this period of waiting of the ineffable gifts of sanctifying grace which are infused by the waters of regeneration. We cannot but approach and condemn this abuse with all Our might as detestable in God's sight.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #113 on:** March 21, 2014, 06:14:28 AM »

PS -- your argument from the unbaptized person before the age of reason does not apply.

Read Trent. BoDers like to quote the one line out of context, but the entire passage in Trent (in which your misinterpreted quote exists) is referring the "ADULTS". Have a look. Purely infused faith can be had by children without the intellectual assent to the faith. This cannot happen with adults. Trent in fact anathematizes the proposition that justification can happen in adults without the proper dispositions (including assent to faith). In fact, it's the major POINT of this teaching. Trent wasn't teaching BoD. Trent was teaching about the relationship between the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament and the cooperation of the free-will, against the Protestant errors.

Quote from: Trent

CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, ... [and what follows]

Nishant · « **Reply #114 on:** March 21, 2014, 06:33:50 AM »

Anyone who denies that souls have been saved by baptism of desire and blood, is guilty of objective mortal sin, because he denies a proposition that is theologically certain, inextricably bound up with Catholic doctrine. Funnily enough, inculpable ignorance alone would excuse you of subjective guilt. Yet you don't believe in it, and make no allowance for it in your judgments, and it is characteristic of divine Justice to judge you by the same standard with which you judged others.

You propagators of this error should cease and desist, and humbly confess the Catholic doctrine.

Quote from: Cantarella

As for the baptized who die before the age of reason who cannot make an act of faith, here is the Church Infallible teaching:

Pope Innocent III Apostoli Letter on Baptism

So now Pope Innocent is infallible in some letters and not in others?

Quote from: Innocent II

To your inquiry we respond thus: 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 the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian * where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.

This is the teaching that the Magisterium has approved. Irrelevant to what was held before, at least after the letter, no one is permitted to hold the contrary. And in fact no one did, all Catholic schools, all theologians, all Saints and Doctors after this point in time teach that there are souls saved by baptism of desire.

Quote from: Innocent III

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 to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith

Anyone who denies that souls are saved by baptism of desire and blood is guilty of mortal sin.