Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: For Last Trad: Did Cornelius receive the Holy Spirit through Baptism of Desire?"  (Read 2531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stubborn, I see you did not answer the question of this thread either. Did Cornelius receive Baptism of Desire, as Fr. Haydock says?

If you'd read the CE article, you would have seen your objection is answered: "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." Christ taught in John 15, some Three Years after His Word in John 3, that love of Him secures the remission of sins.

I don't object to St. Augustine's opinion, the Augustinian position held by SBC. If that's what you believe, then say so. I do object to the Dimonds, who cause souls to fall into dogmatic sedevacantism, a neo-Jansenism and "Church of 2 mentality", leading souls to schism.

Trad123, I will get back to you later. I agree Suprema Haec is not infallible, but it is authoritative. Msgr. Fenton, whom you cite, considered it such. He also considered its requirements for supernatural faith and supernatural charity to be in line with the requirement for explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation. As per what you cite, Fr. Laisney also believes what Msgr. Fenton believed.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Stubborn, I see you did not answer the question of this thread either. Did Cornelius receive Baptism of Desire, as Fr. Haydock says?
We know Carnelius was a just man who actually received the sacrament at the hands of St. Peter himself. That much we know.
I do not believe even you deny this.

Because he did not know such a thing as baptism existed, he could not have desired it, but because he was a just man, God provided it - He sent St. Peter to baptize him because after the promulgation of the Gospel, without the sacrament, even a just man could not have entered the kingdom of God - per God's own divine revelation in John 3:5.

See how God's Providence works?

Will you consider what I suggested?



Quote
We know Carnelius was a just man who actually received the sacrament at the hands of St. Peter himself. That much we know.

Yes, he was a just man. So how did he become just? This was after the promulgation of the Gospel. So he could not have become just "without Baptism or its desire." He had not yet received Water Baptism, therefore he had the Baptism of Desire.

Fr. Haydock: ""Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament."

Quote
"Because he did not know such a thing as baptism existed, he could not have desired it,

The Desire for Baptism, as Fr. Haydock explains, is implicit in charity and contrition. He desired Baptism by loving the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the Grace of the Holy Spirit fell upon him and he became a justified man.

Quote
but because he was a just man, God provided it

Agreed.

Quote
- He sent St. Peter to baptize him because after the promulgation of the Gospel, without the sacrament, even a just man could not have entered the kingdom of God - per God's own divine revelation in John 3:5.

Trent doesn't interpret John 3:5 like that. It interprets John 3:5 in the context of justification i.e. becoming just.

Trent says, since the promulgation of the Gospel, per John 3:5 no one is justified without Baptism or its Desire.

Trent also says elsewhere those who die justified in the state of grace will be saved. Even SBC admit this.

Quote
See how God's Providence works?

God's Providence can work in many ways. St. Thomas said God's Providence will grant BOD to those who desire Baptism.

Who is right? St. Augustine or St. Thomas? I'm open to St. Augustine's view, but St. Thomas is backed by more authorities.

You think it is displeasing to God to believe in BOD? In that case, all those Popes, Saints and Doctors displeased God.

Did the Baltimore Catechism displease God when it said: "We know Baptism of Desire will save us ... from Holy Scripture"?

If they did not, then it is Dimondism - not SBC's view, not Augustinianism - but denial of BOD, that is displeasing to God.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Yes, he was a just man. So how did he become just? This was after the promulgation of the Gospel. So he could not have become just "without Baptism or its desire." He had not yet received Water Baptism, therefore he had the Baptism of Desire.
He became just in the manner of the OT saints, i.e. by keeping the commandments and believing in a savior to come. For this, God provided for him that which he was lacking and that which he was in need of, the sacrament. See how that works? Very beautiful, is it not how our Glorious God watches over and provides for us that which we need - even if we don't know we need it?



Quote
Fr. Haydock: ""Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament."

The Desire for Baptism, as Fr. Haydock explains, is implicit in charity and contrition. He desired Baptism by loving the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the Grace of the Holy Spirit fell upon him and he became a justified man.
Pure speculation and nothing more on Fr.'s part, he says:  "such *may be* the grace of God *occasionally*" and  "that they *may have* remission, but speculation stops there, he goes on so say.... *before* the sacrament. He does not say without the sacrament, he clearly says before the sacrament. YOU are the one saying without the sacrament.  



Quote
Trent doesn't interpret John 3:5 like that. It interprets John 3:5 in the context of justification i.e. becoming just.

Trent says, since the promulgation of the Gospel, per John 3:5 no one is justified without Baptism or its Desire.

Trent also says elsewhere those who die justified in the state of grace will be saved. Even SBC admit this.

Trent says of John 3:5; "as it is written" - signifying that they do not interpret it, YOU are the one [mis]interpreting it.

Now please, think about his....
Yes, Trent says no one is justified without the sacrament, yet you say they are.
Yes, Trent says no one is justified without the desire for the sacrament, yet you say they ARE justified with a desire for the sacrament - even though they never received the sacrament - which Trent just said without the sacrament, no one is justified.

 If no one is justified without the sacrament as you just said, then, no matter what, without the sacrament they are not justified whether they desired it or not.  

Understand?




Quote
God's Providence can work in many ways. St. Thomas said God's Providence will grant BOD to those who desire Baptism.

Who is right? St. Augustine or St. Thomas? I'm open to St. Augustine's view, but St. Thomas is backed by more authorities.

You think it is displeasing to God to believe in BOD? In that case, all those Popes, Saints and Doctors displeased God.

Did the Baltimore Catechism displease God when it said: "We know Baptism of Desire will save us ... from Holy Scripture"?

If they did not, then it is Dimondism - not SBC's view, not Augustinianism - but denial of BOD, that is displeasing to God.

There were many ideas out there about a BOD - Trent closed the matter infallibly and with the full authority of the Church. Whether the sources you quote agree with Trent or not is their concern, you must agree with Trent over any other conflicting source.  

Trent doesn't interpret John 3:5 like that. It interprets John 3:5 in the context of justification i.e. becoming just.

You recognize the post-V2 popes as true popes to whom you owe submission and obedience.  So on what basis are you rejecting their analysis on the situation?  Consider the following:

Quote
1) We refer again to Father Deery’s letter, quoted above, to note its conclusion. Bishop Harrington and he had previously made a special trip to Rome to discuss our case with the Holy Office. What Father Deery wrote here, then, amounts to the Bishop of Worcester advising the Archbishop of Boston about the current attitude of the Holy Office regarding the Father Feeney case and the Crusade of Saint Benedict Center:
Quote
It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to
have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and
speculation which they see as problematical.

In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that proponents of a
strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and
discussion as those who would hold more liberal views.

Source: https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/27991101/Father-Feeney-and-the-Truth-About-Salvation-A-Critique-of-His-Critics-by-Brother-Robert-Mary-MICM (p. 33)

But if you reject the Novus Ordo hierarchy (as you should), why don't you listen to traditional Catholic doctrine on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture?  Consider:

Quote
We ask Father Laisney: If a proposition prefaced with the words "Amen, amen, I say
to thee," is not to be taken literally, then which of Our Savior’s words were so
intended?

Individual theologians may have tampered with the meaning of Christ’s words, but
the Church has never taken them to mean anything other than what they clearly
say.

Here are some popes and saints speaking on the principles of interpretation:

Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori: "The inspired writings have different senses,
namely: the literal and mystical. The literal sense is that which the words plainly
signify, and this sense alone supplies proofs of faith. The mystical sense never
affords proofs of faith unless confirmed by another text which explains the passage
in conformity with the mystical sense, or when the Fathers commonly agree in
expounding it in the mystical sense." (An Exposition and Defense of all the Points of
Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent)

Saint Teresa of Avila: "All the evil in the world comes from ignorance of the truths of
Holy Scripture in their clear simplicity, of which not one iota shall pass away." (The
Great Commentary, Father Cornelius a Lapide, S.J.)

Pope Benedict XV: ". . . all interpretation rests on the literal sense." (Encyclical
Spiritus Paraclitus)

Saint Thomas Aquinas: "It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy
Scripture regarding the sense, for all the senses of Sacred Scripture are founded on
one — the literal sense — from which alone can any argument be drawn." (Summa
Theologica, I, q.1, art.10, ad 1)

Pope Leo XIII: In his Encyclical On the Study of Holy Scripture, the Holy Father
quotes Saint Augustine’s admonition "not to depart from the literal and obvious
sense except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity demands."

The above references are taken from an excellent little booklet, Credo —
Foundations of Faith, written and published by Michael Malone, whom we quoted
earlier. With his permission, we quote further from the conclusion of his section on
the interpretation of Holy Scripture:

Quote
St. Alphonsus Maria continues his comments above in affirming that "we must believe
with the certainty of faith not only what has been defined by the Church, but also what
appears to be clearly contained in Scripture; otherwise, everyone might doubt of any
truth expressed in the Sacred Writings before the definitions of the Church."

It follows, then, that we are bound to hold to the literal meaning of all the doctrinal or
moral truths found in Holy Scripture, even before they are defined by the Church. For
example, every soul among the faithful professed belief in the necessity of the
Sacrament of Baptism for eternal salvation during the fifteen centuries prior to its
definition by the Council of Trent in its seventh Session of March, l547, based on the
clearly literal words of Jesus Christ Himself to Nicodemus as recorded in Saint John’s
Gospel (3:5).

The faithful have also held from the very beginning that the true and total Faith is
required of all the Elect, as Our Lord declared: "He who believes and is baptized shall
be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Furthermore, no
Catholic is free to hold any teaching which might serve to contradict these literal
expressions.

This principle concerning the literal interpretation of Holy Scripture is at the very
heart of Father Feeney’s opposition to the wild misuse being made today of the
term "baptism of desire."

In other words, no interpretation of Sacred Scripture can falsify the literal meaning of the text.

As for the topic of this thread, please watch this video: