Author Topic: Faith of Desire (Read 4351 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** January 26, 2014, 10:27:07 AM »

Let's concede, for the sake of argument only, that the Church teaches Baptism of Desire. Let's look at the sources Ambrose compiled on another thread that allegedly teach BoD. In each case, I will point out that the teaching in question limits BoD to the very specific / concrete case of THE CATECHUMEN.

St. Augustine -- catechumen
St. Ambrose -- catechumen (Valentinian)
BoB Fathers -- catechumens
St. Emerentiana et al. -- catechumens
Innocent III -- more than catechumen ("priest not baptized")
St. Thomas Aquinas -- catechumen-like persons (those with explicit Catholic faith)
Council of Trent -- catechumens
Catechism of Trent -- catechumens (adults preparing for Baptism)
St. Robert Bellarmine -- catechumens (question: "Whether catechumens who die before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism can be saved.")
St. Alphonsus -- catechumens
1917 Code of Canon Law -- catechumens

Every single one of these was specifically dealing with the case of CATECHUMENS. Catechumens in the early Church enjoyed a very specific quasi-canonical status in the Church. They were signed with the Sign of the Cross in a formal ceremony and allowed to be called "Christians".

If the Cushingite heretics on this board would limit themselves to BoD for catechumens, i.e. for those who have the Catholic faith and who intended and willed and even planned to become Catholic and receive the Sacrament of Baptism, to those who had all the dispositions as described by the Council of Trent leading up to the famous passage they claim teaches BoD, then I would grant that theirs was an opinion tolerated by the Church and would not call them heretics.

WHEN on the other hand these Cushingite heretics, as they ALWAYS and INVARIABLY do, extend BoD (without ANY authority whatsoever) to heretics, schismatics, infidels, pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. they become heretics in denying the dogmatic definitions of EENS which EXPLICITLY state that schismatics, heretics, infidels, etc. cannot be saved. When the Father(s), Doctors, etc. speak of BoD they are not talking about ANY of these; they're talking about those who are not schismatic, heretic, infidel, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. but rather of those who have accepted the Holy Catholic Faith, i.e. about catechumens.

In the 1700s and 1800s the Jesuits in particular started to dabble in expanding BoD to these classes and began the undermining of EENS that would lead inexorably and inevitably to Vatican II. These are the same Jesuits that dabbled in inculturation, etc. that led to the same Vatican II depravities we see today. These are the same Jesuits that were sponsoring Ecuмenical conferences under Pius XII. Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points out all these precendents and logical antecedents to Vatican II.

Bishop Williamson rightly traces the modern evils of Vatican II to the rise of subjectivism that starts in the Renaissance.

You Cushingite heretics always dishonestly quote these sources above as PROOF for your false allegation that the Church teaches how non-Catholics (heretics, Muslims, Jews, pagans, etc. can be saved). Consequently, most so-called Traditional Catholics promote the VERY SAME heresies in Vatican II. Consequently, they're schismatic for rejecting Vatican II. +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Sanborn, +Kelly, +McKenna, CMRI, SSPX, etc. have all gone on record saying that non-Catholics (heretics, pagans, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, etc.) can be saved and therefore have publicly embraced and taught HERESY !!!

You guys claim to be defending the Church's magisterium wherein point of fact you're heretics who deny the dogma that OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SALVATION. Your theology is no different than that of Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner. Your ecclesiology / soteriology is no different than that of Vatican II. You are enemies of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith, not its defenders.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2014, 10:32:04 AM »

I titled this thread "Faith of Desire" because that's primarily what's at issue here. You dishonestly cite sources for Baptism of Desire as if they promoted your heretical notions regarding Faith of Desire when they don't. It's no different than when BoDers cite BoB Fathers as proof for BoD when even a lot of those explicitly reject BoD (saying that martyrdom is the ONLY exception to the law of Baptism).

Cantarella · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2014, 10:59:04 AM »

As I had said before, the concept has gradually degenerated into a full grown heresy. Baptism of Desire has become a soft pillow for those modern relativists who prefer not to proselytize and play nice with everyone. BOD has served as an excuse to defend Ecuмenism and Universal Salvation, both erroneous ideas, born out of sentimental liberal theology.

This was not really a problem before, since the teaching of Catholic Tradition that no one can be saved who is ignorant of the Gospel was quite clear and maintained by most. But thanks to the growing modernism, the heretical theory of salvation for everyone, even members of false religions, became the belief of even priests in the latter half of nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

This has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved without converting. Nowadays, the spiritual aim of conversion, (which would be true charity towards neighborhood) is being overridden and totally eclipsed by purely humanitarian works thanks to this.

soulguard · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2014, 11:38:56 AM »

Good post ladislaus.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2014, 06:00:25 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

This has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved without converting.

What's more, Cantarella, is that about 95% of all those who claim to be Traditional Catholic believe the same thing. And yet this is in a nutshell THE fundamental error of Vatican II, the root cause of all the Vatican II errors.

bowler tried to make this distinction in his "Heroin BoD" thread.

BoDers always obfuscate by citing the authorities I list in the OP as if they somehow promoted the idea that non-Catholics (heretics, schismatics, infidels, etc.) can be saved. So I wanted to make the necessary distinction.

If any of these guys just said that they believed in BoD for catechumens, I would disagree, but I would not see that they were doing any harm to the faith, nor would I have the temerity to call them out as heretics when the Church has always tolerated the opinion, when several eminent Doctors have held to that opinion, etc. But in point of fact, they use BoD as cover for heresy, the denial of EENS, the reduction of EENS to a meaningless formula, a mere ridiculous tautology and a laughing-stock for enemies of the Church.

BoD for catechumens is like the "gateway drug" as it were (to extend bowler's metaphor) to all the modernist heresies, the Vatican II ecclesiology and Vatican II soteriology.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2014, 06:18:12 PM »

I've also pointed out that the promotion of BoD serves ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD purpose whatsoever. If in fact God will have saved souls by this means, then of course who are we to argue? As Father Feeney famously pointed out, the promotion of BoD actually undermines the efficacy of BoD, because it lessens people's desire to receive the actual Sacrament of Baptism. Would they be saved by desiring to have the desire for Baptism?

Since most people equate BoD with the heretical idea that non-Catholics can be saved by virtue of "nice guys must be saved" soteriology, it only serves to undermine the Catholic Faith.

BoD, as typically formulated, rests upon other fundamentally heretical notions, such as that it would be somehow unfair of God to deny salvation to such as these or that God can be constrained by impossibility. In finally rejecting BoD, St. Augustine referred to this reasoning as leading to a "vortex of confusion".

If in fact someone were among God's elect, and truly desired the Sacrament of Baptism, and were filled with supernatural faith, hope, and charity (through the action of the Holy Spirit), along with a perfect contrition for their sins, what would prevent God from bringing the SACRAMENT of Baptism to such a one? We have many stories in the lives of the saints where a saint raised a person from the dead in order to confer the Sacrament of Baptism upon the person ... as if to show exactly that.

Finally, there's a false "monolithic" notion of hell that fuels people's idea that it would be unfair for God to condemn nice people to hell. People conceive of hell as a monolithic place wherein a kindly old Protestant grandmother burns right along side of mass murderers and ends up playing checkers with Joe Stalin. Even one of the EENS definitions specifically mentions that people suffer "to varying degrees" in hell, to a degree that's perfectly just and commensurate to their actual sins. How do we know that if God's withholds the gift of faith from someone it isn't because in His Mercy He saw that this person would reject the faith and merit even a greater eternal punishment? It is not for us to question God's Mercy or His Justice. We only know that every act of His is both perfectly just and perfectly merciful, and it's not for us worms with our pathetic excuses for intellects to know and understand what would be fair and why.

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2014, 11:27:17 PM »

Ladislaus:

Interesting points. However, in looking at VII; deconstructing the Ecclesiology of 'subsistit'; my intention is to be less detailed and more bigger picture. The filter is simply trying to look at actions and not the 'appearance' in as brutally a realistic light as possible; practical to the core. Considering alternative 'root causes' and not just surface gloss.

1. That a man may be saved in any religion, provided he lives a good moral life according to the light he has/ possibility of salvation of those who live and die in a false religion - For me, I work with nearly 98% non-Catholics. With most, I have close connections with them and affection for them. Inside of me, there is an internal repugnance towards even thinking that they could go to hell. For the most part, I internally wish the opposite into hoping into believing that they will 'somehow be saved.' On top of that, some of these are my bosses and my fear of being ostracized to the point of losing 'influence' or fear of being a 'target'; has cooled any thought of me making any attempted conversion of them. Internally this has been a HUGE contradiction in me ~ Jesus's instructions to the 12 were to 'Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel...he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Mk 16:15,16.

2. Now, in digging deeper, what do I do??? I believe that I have acquiesced to Naturalism; failing to live a supernatural life and the error that natural good works can save vs. supernatural good works - but, in readling your posts and in doing some further digging ... I'm shaping my look that the supernatural good works is from the belief of not dissenting from what Christ has revealed to His Church on the necessity of His Faith and Himself.

3. So the bigger picture/ fruit of VII: Ecclesiology ~ horizontal focus on the goods and evils of this life with natural goodness sufficient for justification is to have a Catholic society that no longer has either the desire or the guts to convert others because of fear of what temporal advantages we might lose in this world.

4. The intentions of VII of bringing the Church to modern man and making it easier to be a Catholic has resulted in access to worldly prosperity that has been a detriment to our spirit. This appears to be the dark realities hiding behind the glamorous surface gloss of easy going "dialogue & diplomacy" or the "go along (with the crowd)" to "get along (so you won't ever be accused of not being a team player)" .... but in the end we have become cowards and in a spiritual fog resulting in many not standing up for Christ or defending the Faith for that matter...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2014, 07:11:57 AM »

Quote from: The Penny Catechism

With most, I have close connections with them and affection for them. Inside of me, there is an internal repugnance towards even thinking that they could go to hell. For the most part, I internally wish the opposite into hoping into believing that they will 'somehow be saved.' ... I believe that I have acquiesced to Naturalism; failing to live a supernatural life and the error that natural good works can save vs. supernatural good works - but, in readling your posts and in doing some further digging ... I'm shaping my look that the supernatural good works is from the belief of not dissenting from what Christ has revealed to His Church on the necessity of His Faith and Himself.

That's very perceptive, and I know that I used to think the same way as well. In fact, the genesis for the original concept of BoD for catechumens is along the same lines. You had catechumens appearing to be devout and to live good lives sometimes dying before receiving Baptism, whereas you had some scoundrels living dissolute lives receiving the Sacrament on their deathbeds. So Christians began to speculate about how these might be saved. St. Augustine, though, the only Father who clearly speculated about BoD, in later rejecting the idea had come to the realization that this type of thinking leads to a "vortex of confusion" ... which is precisely what we have going on today.

What's KEY to understand the problem is to realize the major difference between the supernatural and the natural. Most Catholics don't understand this. I'll get back to it later when I have time.

Your desire that your friends and associates be saved is extremely laudable.

If there's a criticism I have of some who have embarked upon the crusade on behalf of EENS, it's that it does appear as if some have succuмbed to "bitter zeal" and almost, almost I dare say, come across as relishing the fact that many are lost (because it proves them right). Nothing in the created universe can be as tragic as the loss of a soul. But it's none other than a firm belief in EENS combined with this wonderful love for souls and the desire that they be saved that leads to the great missionary zeal we have seen in the Church's history. Neither belief in EENS without love for souls nor some vague love for souls without belief EENS can inspired true missionary zeal. So it's PRECISELY out of a love for souls that we need to continue to defend a strict interpretation of EENS.

We see this in the Novus Ordo. Despite all their claims of having love for people, they have zero missionary zeal, nay, rather, they denounce "proselytizing" as an evil to be avoided. Religious indifferentism is the result of the naturalism and EENS-denial of the Novus Ordo. It's ironic that Francis calls Traditional Catholics "Pelagians" when they themselves are the textbook Pelagians. Pelagianism is in fact that idea that people are naturally good and essentially can be saved via natural goodness and without the free grace of God ... which is what the entire Novus Ordo is founded on.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2014, 07:28:08 AM »

Faith or desire is not at issue at all. No one claims it is possible to be saved apart from a supernatural faith and perfect charity. Better give this thread a new title or it might appear that you are misrepresenting the BOD position in order to appear to knock it down.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2014, 07:36:08 AM »

Oops I misread your title.

But "faith of desire" is a novel term and not used by the Church when she teaches BOD.

You have to come up with strange things in order to undermine the Catholic Church's teaching on BOD. "Faith of desire"? What is that?

The Catholic Church teaches that BOD is not possible apart from supernatural Faith.

So this thread needs a new title in order to properly represent the BOD position.

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2014, 08:05:30 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Oops I misread your title.

But "faith of desire" is a novel term and not used by the Church when she teaches BOD.

You have to come up with strange things in order to undermine the Catholic Church's teaching on BOD. "Faith of desire"? What is that?

The Catholic Church teaches that BOD is not possible apart from supernatural Faith.

So this thread needs a new title in order to properly represent the BOD position.

The Church teaches that there is no salvation without the sacraments - this condemns a BOD - agreed?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2014, 08:13:34 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Oops I misread your title.

But "faith of desire" is a novel term and not used by the Church when she teaches BOD.

You have to come up with strange things in order to undermine the Catholic Church's teaching on BOD. "Faith of desire"? What is that?

The Catholic Church teaches that BOD is not possible apart from supernatural Faith.

So this thread needs a new title in order to properly represent the BOD position.

The Church teaches that there is no salvation without the sacraments - this condemns a BOD - agreed?

"or the desire thereof"

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2014, 08:30:54 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Oops I misread your title.

But "faith of desire" is a novel term and not used by the Church when she teaches BOD.

You have to come up with strange things in order to undermine the Catholic Church's teaching on BOD. "Faith of desire"? What is that?

The Catholic Church teaches that BOD is not possible apart from supernatural Faith.

So this thread needs a new title in order to properly represent the BOD position.

The Church teaches that there is no salvation without the sacraments - this condemns a BOD - agreed?

"or the desire thereof"

So according to you, either the sacrament or the desire thereof suffices for salvation.

St. Alphonsus says only heretics say such things.

Want me to post his quote for you again?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2014, 08:35:52 AM »

Is this the Quote:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ. (Alphonsus De Liguori)

Can you you give me a strait answer as to whether (according to you) BOD is possible for anyone or not?

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2014, 08:50:58 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ. (Alphonsus De Liguori)

Can you you give me a strait answer as to whether (according to you) BOD is possible for anyone or not?

There is no salvation without the sacrament.

Trent clearly teaches this as does St. Alphonsus.

You can seek and find all the alternative answers which will suit your purpose, but until you sincerely seek the truth and accept it when (not if) you find it, you will remain, per St. Alphonsus, a heretic for saying that there is salvation without the sacrament.