Genuinuely curious here - how do those who reject BOD understand the following from the Council of Trent and St Alphonsus in regards to the same?
Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Lol. No desire to debate, as I stated, I was genuinely interested in a perspective I was unable to find. Thank you.Ah, ok - my apologies, normally any thread starting out with those quotes turns into a hundred pages of the same tired old arguments.
Are any of you BOD advocates capable of understanding the logical distinction between necessity and sufficiency?
The Council if Trent teaches that baptism or its “desire” are necessary for translation into the state of justification; is doesn’t state anywhere that “desire” is sufficient to effect this.
This is a fact of logic.
If you believe Canon 4 supports Baptism of Desire then you must also believe in Holy Orders of Desire, Matrimony of Desire, Communion of Desire, etc.I heard a Priest once during a sermon mention ‘confession of desire’.
I heard a Priest once during a sermon mention ‘confession of desire’.Penance of Desire is a thing as defined at Trent, but it's only for cases like martyrs and those who made every attempt to get the Sacrament but were unable to due to circuмstances outside of their control.
IMHO that is the last thing the laity need to hear considering those on their deathbeds who need family members to go to great lengths to get them a Priest for Last Sacraments!
If someone stops to think ‘oh well at least grandma/grandpa can have confession of desire, they’ll go to Heaven.’ NOT GOOD. It’s a slippery slope one way or another with this ‘Sacraments of desire stuff’.
Before I had even heard of BOD I did have a general idea for how Baptism worked and always believed that God would provide the Sacrament for those destined to be with Him in Heaven. I think also hearing stories of people in car accidents having a random person show up on the scene to Baptize them could have helped with my understanding also.
Penance of Desire is a thing as defined at Trent, but it's only for cases like martyrs and those who made every attempt to get the Sacrament but were unable to due to circuмstances outside of their control.Please,
But justifying BOD using Trent requires one to straight up ignore the "pure and natural water" canon and also believe that Holy Orders, Matrimony, etc. can be replaced with the "desire" for them.
Please,I said a will for the Sacrament was necessary.
where do you find this in Trent. Session 14, chapter IV teaches that man can be reconciled to God before the sacrament is actually received but this is not the same as saying without the sacrament, or that the sacrament can be had by desire. In fact it teaches that contrition is not enough and that a will for the sacrament must be present.
I'm sorry its a bit off topic, but would like to know.
God bless,
JoeZ
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm genuinely searching for more info on the topic of receiving the sacrament of penance in voto. I'm sorry if my post looks like a challenge to your position, it was not meant to be so. If you know better on the topic I am willing to learn.Well I don't see what contradicts Penance of Desire in the section you cited. Indeed it does say "before the Sacrament", and I suppose you take this to mean that the Sacrament MUST be gotten later or it's invalid? A Sacrament cannot be revoked, so I don't see how it could mean that. Rather, it's saying that the Sacrament should still be sought after either way. Regardless, perfect contrition being a substitute for Penance where it is unavailable is a very old doctrine. It's not a new innovation.
JoeZ
I think there is some semantic goofing around on this issue.Hence why Trent specifically addressed and denied Baptism of desire "thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ 'unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'... let them be anathema". That is a direct refutation of BOD that is impossible for anyone with the slightest bit of self-awareness to try circuмvent that without realising the contradiction. And yet so many take a warning against metaphors as a metaphor...
What is reception “in voto” anyway? Say I have perfect contrition, confess to Christ, and He says, unknown to me, “Your sins are forgiven”, well, there’s your proximate matter, form and priestly minister right there. I can rationalise how, in this case, the sacrament can be received essentially “in re” via a votum (maybe I’m wrong in this rationalisation, but whatever): in my “votum” is already implied, in actu, the matter of the sacrament, so that Christ Himself can supply the rest.
But with baptism of desire? By definition nobody’s pouring flowing water onto ones head while saying the Trinitarian formula!
It seems only marginally less nonsensical than receiving the Eucharist in voto (oh, I’m sure some theologian has tried).
1917 Code of Canon Law
On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
§ 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."
Genuinuely curious here - how do those who reject BOD understand the following from the Council of Trent and St Alphonsus in regards to the same?
Council of Trent 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
8. It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars--I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, imitating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices.
Baptism of Desire is specifically identified in Canon Law
Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this Code applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.
Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.
4. See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mahometans and heretics, and all are lost. Consider that, compared with these, only a few not even the tenth part of the human race have the happiness of being born in a country where the true faith reigns; and, among that small number, he has chosen you.
2.
(. . .)
Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.
The 1917 Code is not binding on the universal Church, but only the Latin rite. It can be argued that the Code does not possess infallibility.The first sentence in the reply above is identified in the very first canon of Canon Law - Licet in Codice iuris canonici Ecclesiae quoque Orientalis disciplina saepe referatur, ipse tamen unam respicit Latinam Ecclesiam, neque Orientalem obligat, nisi de iis agatur, quae ex ipsa rei natura etiam Orientalem afficiunt. The second sentence above is immaterial because Canon Law is from the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
Genuinuely curious here - how do those who reject BOD understand the following from the Council of Trent99% of the people who promote BOD do not even believe that a desire to be baptized is necessary for salvation, nor a desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. They believe that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jєωs etc., can be saved without "a desire to be baptized, nor a desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity".
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
"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 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.'"
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Penance is a different case however. Whereas natural and true Baptism is specifically stated to be required by Trent, it's also taught in Trent and ever since that perfect contrition or unavailability of the Sacrament can allow Penance in voto. But like you said, extending that to Baptism is like extending it to Eucharist.
So, I believe it is absolutely safe to say that, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
Or, rather, it's like extending in voto to Holy Orders. None of the "character" Sacraments can be received in voto. BoDers admit that the character/seal isn't received in BoD but claim that the character is not essential to the effects of the Sacrament. But in Holy Orders, you can't have Holy Orders without the character. That's because it's essential to Holy Orders to have the priestly character. Why then wouldn't that be the case with Baptism? It's that character which makes us members of the Church and adopted children of God. Just as Holy Orders makes a man take on the persona Christi, so does Baptism, only to a lesser extent, so that God the Father recognizes as His sons, being in the image of His Son.Interestingly, there are a growing number of Catholics (including Pfeifferites) who believe that the character IS received in bod. That original sin IS remitted, as well as the reception of justification. They say everything Baptism does, bod does equally since bod is now said to be a fully functional aspect of Baptism. And why not? It becomes impossible to prove anything against bod being an inward sign, with all the benefits of the outward sign, if one has already accepted bod exists. After all, God can do anything and isn't tied to the sacraments, they say. Naturally, once you cross the line, anything goes. Every single warning and condemnation is redefined to explain how this works, so using Church teachings to debunk bod falls on deaf ears since bod has now become Baptism! Redefining terms is at the heart of the bod apologetic which proves to me at least, bod is modernism at its finest. This is relatively new, too. Once upon a time, bod'ers would never insist bod was a dogma, nor that the recipients get the character, or remission of sin. They sure do now.
"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.' "
Canon 1239 § 2
Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.
Interestingly, there are a growing number of Catholics (including Pfeifferites) who believe that the character IS received in bod. That original sin IS remitted, as well as the reception of justification.
Canon 1239 § 2"Catechumens are treated as if baptized, if they remained unbaptized through no fault of their own. This does not include infants, but refers rather to would-be converts, persons under instruction or who had indicated a positive desire to begin instruction for reception into the Church." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.
Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.
"Catechumens are treated as if baptized, if they remained unbaptized through no fault of their own. This does not include infants, but refers rather to would-be converts, persons under instruction or who had indicated a positive desire to begin instruction for reception into the Church." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.
Well, that's a new one. Do you have any sources? If they actually hold this, they're flying in the face of St. Alphonsus and all BoD theorists before them.Fr. Pfeiffer recently said it, and even tried to back it up. Bod is an "aspect of Baptism" now, and the most recent modifying term, in addition to rez and voto, and all the rest of his fluminus flaminus.
"470 - II. Baptism of water is necessary for the attainment of salvation as an indispensable means for reaching that end. Only in exceptional cases can it be substituted by the Baptism of desire or of blood" - MORAL THEOLOGY, by Rev. Heribert Jone, O. F. M. CAP., J. C. D., and Rev. Urban Adelman, O.F. M. CAP., J. C. D.
To Ladislaus - When you say, "Are you dense or just bad willed?", this is a calumny, defined as "1. a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something. 2. the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation." It is uncharitable.
CODEX IURIS CANONICIHow does one know whether persons who die without baptism are not at fault? Simply because they died before they got baptism? Who judges such a thing? What if they took their time and didn't get Baptism when they could have? Or seriously questioned their faith? Denied their faith? Didn't regret a mortal sin? Cursed God last minute? This canon may be in a book that's supposed to be Catholic, but it really doesn't make sense that people must consider someone as Baptized when they are not.
PARS PRIMA.
DE SACRAMENTIS.
TITULUS XII.
De sepultura ecclesiastica.
CAPUT III.
De iis quibus sepultura ecclesiastica concedenda est aut neganda.
CAN. 1239.
§ 1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
§ 2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
§ 3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.
"General Principles. Persons who die without baptism are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical burial (c. 1239, § 1). Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be considered (in this connection) as baptized (c. 1239, § 2). All baptized persons are to receive ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly excluded from it by law (c. 1239, § 3)." - CANON LAW, A Text and Commentary, by Fathers T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., and Adam C. Ellis, S.J.
How does one know whether persons who die without baptism are not at fault? Simply because they died before they got baptism? Who judges such a thing? What if they took their time and didn't get Baptism when they could have? Or seriously questioned their faith? Denied their faith? Didn't regret a mortal sin? Cursed God last minute? This canon may be in a book that's supposed to be Catholic, but it really doesn't make sense that people must consider someone as Baptized when they are not.I would like to suggest that you consult a priest with these concerns.
I would like to suggest that you consult a priest with these concerns.Your quote proves my point. No man can know, so how is it that men are told to assume a catechumen as Baptized, who dies not Baptized? The command to accept someone dying without Baptism is automatically Baptized no matter what condition he may have been in is an outrage. Scripture tells us to test the spirit. Any truth is able to stand scrutiny. And that's all this is about.
The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.
You said "This canon may be in a book that's supposed to be Catholic...", to which I would encourage your to explore the following link. http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Canon_Law/index.html
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer's article entitled "The Three Baptisms".
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm
No man can know, so how is it that men are told to assume a catechumen as Baptized, who dies not Baptized? The command to accept someone dying without Baptism is automatically Baptized no matter what condition he may have been in is an outrage.
You're going with JAM's false reading of the Canon Law. This does not say that catechumens are considered baptized, but merely that they are to be treated as such in the context of whether or not they're allowed to have a Catholic funeral. This is merely a disciplinary measure and amounts to nothing more than saying "Baptized and catechumens may receive a Catholic burial."Actually, I was complaining about it. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
Stop spamming. I've read this article and it's theological garbage.I am not "spamming", nor am I subject to you command. What you've read and your opinions don't concern me.
Actually, I was complaining about it. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.I provided Church approved commentary on the canon cited.
You're going with JAM's false reading of the Canon Law. This does not say that catechumens are considered baptized, but merely that they are to be treated as such in the context of whether or not they're allowed to have a Catholic funeral. This is merely a disciplinary measure and amounts to nothing more than saying "Baptized and catechumens may receive a Catholic burial.".
I am not "spamming", nor am I subject to you command. What you've read and your opinions don't concern me.
If you have a complaint about my participation on CathInfo.com , I suggest you talk to the owner.
Does not an extension of the Church's liturgy to a class of persons have more significance?
"632. Baptism - the door and foundation of all other Sacraments, the Sacrament which, if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired - is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and the pronouncing of the prescribed form of words. Baptism administered with the observance of all the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the ritual is called solemn; otherwise it is called not solemn, or private (Canon 737)." - A Practical Commentary On The Code Of Canon Law, by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., LL.B.
"Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, - either really or by desire - and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized. This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient." - A COMMENTART ON CANON LAW, VOLUME FOUR, by The Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, O.S.B, D.D., Professor of Canon Law
“…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.”
XXII. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. I will, however, speak out boldly my opinion on these matters; and I think that all other sensible men will range themselves on my side. Of those who have received the gift, some were altogether alien from God and from salvation, both addicted to all manner of sin, and desirous to be bad; others were semivicious, and in a kind of mean state between good and bad; others again, while they did that which was evil, yet did not approve their own action, just as men in a fever are not pleased with their own sickness. And others even before they were illuminated were worthy of praise; partly by nature, and partly by the care with which they prepared themselves for Baptism. These after their initiation became evidently better, and less liable to fall; in the one case with a view to procuring good, and in the other in order to preserve it. And among these, those who gave in to some evil are better than those who were altogether bad; and better still than those who yielded a little, are those who were more zealous, and broke up their fallow ground before Baptism; they have the advantage over the others of having already laboured; for the font does not do away with good deeds as it does with sins. But better even than these are they who are also cultivating the Gift, and are polishing themselves to the utmost possible beauty.
XXIII. And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift — to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?
Of the number of the elect and predestined, even those who have led the very worst kind of life are led to repentance through the goodness of God, through whose patience they were not taken from this life in the commission of crimes; in order to show them and their co-heirs the depth of evil from which the grace of God delivers man. Not one of them perishes, regardless of his age at death; never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because of these men, our Lord says: This is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.' The other mortals, not of this number, who are of the same mass as these, but have been made vessels of wrath, are born for their advantage. God creates none of them rashly or fortuitously, and He also knows what good may be made from them, since He works good in the very gift of human nature in them, and through them He adorns the order of the present world. He leads none of them to the wholesome and spiritual repentance by which a man in Christ is reconciled to God, whether His patience in their regard be more generous or not unequal. Therefore, though all men, of the same mass of perdition and condemnation, unrepentant according to the hardness of their heart, treasure up wrath to themselves on the day of wrath when each will be repaid according to his works, God through His merciful goodness leads some of them to repentance, and according to his judgment does not lead others.
If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined." There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: "We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ." Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.
What advantages it to be bound by the ties of earthly family, if we are not joined by those of the spiritual? What profits nearness of kin on earth, if we are to be strangers in heaven? For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven. One has Christ for his King; the other, sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes; one has worms' work for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other. Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion? Did we remove the same pangs, did we come forth from the same womb? This has nothing to do with that most perfect relationship. Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city which is above. How long do we tarry over the border, when we ought to reclaim our ancient country? We risk no common danger; for if it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble. But God grant that none of those who hear these words experience that punishment!
St. John Chrysostom
Homily 25 on the Gospel of John
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240125.htm
If any enquire, "Why is water included?" let us also in return ask, "Wherefore was earth employed at the beginning in the creation of man?" for that it was possible for God to make man without earth, is quite plain to every one. Be not then over-curious. That the need of water is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before the water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says; "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts 10:47
Reply to Objection 3. Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character.
Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? Wi. — 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. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. S. Aug. sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.
There is NOTHING that is impossible for God. You're just proving that BoD is predicated upon this idea that God in some cases cannot bring His elect to Baptism. That's essentially heretical (cf. Sacred Scripture -- "With God all things are possible.") If someone were to be saved by BoD, it would only be because God directly willed for that person to be saved by BoD rather than to receive Sacramental Baptism. But why would God ever will for a person to be saved by BoD? Answer: He wouldn't. If such a one did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, it was because God did not will for that person to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. If God willed that someone should receive Baptism, then he WILL receive Baptism.
I personally think the "God wouldn't do that" argument is a very poor one, no matter the subject.
Absolutely. That's precisely what St. Augustine was referring to as a vortex of confusion..
We don't do theology based on our speculations regarding what God would/wouldn't do. We do theology based on what He has revealed that He DOES do. Necessity of Baptism for salvation has been revealed to us. BoD has not been revealed but is mere speculation.
I personally think the "God wouldn't do that" argument is a very poor one, no matter the subject.I always liked the question poster ihsv used to ask, this simple question made all the BODers either furious or would simply ignore it so as to continue to argue about the indisputable as per ususal......
.
It's a favorite among the conservative Novus Ordo types who simply appeal to Providence in attempting to make their case. "God wouldn't let that happen."
.
It's of course true, at bottom, that every proposition's truth is ultimately conditioned on Providence. But we have certain knowledge that provides a glimpse into God's pattern of design in a general way AND fairly accurate way. The testimony of the Fathers, the Universal teaching of the Church, etc.
.
When you just jump to "God would/wouldn't do that" you're *passing over* all the reasons that support or detract from arguing what God would or wouldn't do. It's basically question-begging.
.
I provided Church approved commentary on the canon cited.Baptism of desire was never taught by the Church, only by men. Big difference. It may be found in lots of writings, but it contradicts everything the Church teaches. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism? Uh, no, they say, there are three baptisms. Baptism is necessary? Uh, not quite, because there's bod. Christ insists water and the Holy Spirit are necessary? Their answer: if you get super creative you will see that water is included in the desire.
The simple matter of fact is that baptism of desire is taught by the Church. Your opinion to the contrary is your own.
.
The fathers all taught some degree of BoD (sometimes just for martyrs).
I provided Church approved commentary on the canon cited.
The simple matter of fact is that baptism of desire is taught by the Church. Your opinion to the contrary is your own.
By the time you get to Trent BoD is ordinary teaching,
No, no they did not. We have about a dozen references to BoB, and only one highly speculative opinion later retracted by St. Augustine, regarding BoD. One could argue St. Ambrose on behalf of Valentinian, but it's not clear what he had in mind (perhaps even BoB since Valentinian was killed for being against Arianism)..
With regard to BoB, the idea seems to originate with St. Cyprian for most of those Fathers, and St. Cyprian characterized BoB as reception of the SACRAMENT. Later authors say that this is an error. But other passages in St. Cyprian indicate that he believed that the matter and form of the Sacrament were present, that the blood-water mixture flowing from the martyr provided the matter in lieu of straight water, which was then accompanied by angels who pronounced the words (the form of the Sacrament). So he viewed this as an alternate mode of receiving the SACRAMENT and not as as substitute for it.
So the evidence is extremely weak. Even Karl Rahner, who promotes "Anonymous Christian" theology, admitted that there's little to no evidence among the Church Fathers for salvation without the Sacrament.
Absolutely. That's precisely what St. Augustine was referring to as a vortex of confusion.Absolutely, God knows intimately every soul who will be saved, he has no need or justification to go outside of His established order. If His attributes are all perfect( and they are), those who are lost are lost according to His justice, and everyone who is saved are saved by his mercy.
We don't do theology based on our speculations regarding what God would/wouldn't do. We do theology based on what He has revealed that He DOES do. Necessity of Baptism for salvation has been revealed to us. BoD has not been revealed but is mere speculation.
Maybe during the Arian period there was some doubt as to the quality of teaching of BoD,
Anyways, the tension between the necessity of baptism and BoD is just a fabrication, both with regards to what the Church teaches and in regards to the very foundation (i.e., "ordinary" language and "plain" meanings) on which the case for a contradiction rests.
.
Can you reply to everything I say in a post in one post?
.
I don't care what Karl Rahner says, as heretics aren't a reliable guide for Church teaching.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf^^^^ A product / invention of Fr. Cekada :facepalm:
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/information/BoD1.png)
It's very curious to me that people find a tension between the necessity of baptism and BoD, because they seem to make this argument based on the "plain" or "obvious" use of the word necessary precluding the possibility of the necessary item being supplied for.
.
As an example, it is perfectly sensible to speak of hard work as being necessary to support one's family, and no one who says its necessary would, by saying so, intend to preclude the fact that someone born into a trust fund really doesn't need to work hard, since the property and finances have been supplied in another way. We could think of a million things that are truly necessary that can be supplied for. Point simply being that there's nothing "plain" or "obvious" about the word "necessary" radically excluding a supplication of effect; indeed, if we actually "go to the Church" (instead of "Churchmen", as happenby is wont to distinguish) we read that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, which tells you everything you need to know. Instruments are metaphysically substitutable, while principals (in this case, Christ's passion) are not. Which is why the Old Testament Fathers, despite doing everything that was asked of them for justification, did not go immediately to Heaven-- because there was not yet a principal efficient cause of their justification.
.
Anyways, the tension between the necessity of baptism and BoD is just a fabrication, both with regards to what the Church teaches and in regards to the very foundation (i.e., "ordinary" language and "plain" meanings) on which the case for a contradiction rests.
^^^^ A product / invention of Fr. Cekada :facepalm:Use of the Identity Fallacy, an Argumentum ad Hominem. Object to the points, not the person.
He has so many errors in that link that it would be a very long thread by itself just to go through them all.
Use of the Identity Fallacy, an Argumentum ad Hominem. Object to the points, not the person.He did object to the points and called them errors.
He did object to the points and called them errors.An argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Caput 38
Quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutisCHAPTER 38
That to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis. Dicit enim Cyrillus in libro thesaurorum: itaque, fratres mei, sic Christum imitamur, ut ipsius oves vocem eius audiamus, manentes in Ecclesia Petri, et non inflemur vento superbiae, ne forte tortuosus serpens propter nostram contentionem nos eiiciat, ut Evam olim de Paradiso. Et Maximus in epistola Orientalibus directa dicit: coadunatam et fundatam super petram confessionis Petri dicimus universalem Ecclesiam secundum definitionem salvatoris, in qua necessario salutis animarum nostrum est manere, et ei est obedire, suam servantes fidem et confessionem. It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” (https://dhspriory.org/thomas/footnoteicon.gif) And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.”
onus probandi incuмbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negatI just wanted to point out your error
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
Which points in the link do you consider an error and why?
I just wanted to point out your errorWhat exactly is that?
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdfSection V
Which points in the link do you consider an error and why?
What exactly is that?It's obvious in my first post. You accused someone of ad hominem attacks when he was addressing the points. Ask him what he objects to.
Lad,Since you refuse to answer the simple question (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/genuinely-curious-rejection-of-baptism-and-the-council-of-trent/msg611934/#msg611934), will you answer why you refuse to answer the simple question?
I'm not going to follow suit with your splitting up of my posts as though these thoughts are unrelated, all needing to be treated separately. You're taking me out if context and not reading what I'm saying right out of the gate. It's clear, in fact explicit, that what I said about necessity was directed at happenby.
.
I know that this approach is a good way to bury the question I asked you three pages ago and basically reset the discussion to square one. But that doesn't help anyone, and it's probably the source of your impatience-- even if we disagree I've not done anything to warrant that attitude of yours .
Section VDo you disagree then that "I. You must believe the teachings of both the solemn and the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church (Vatican I)."?
Points 1, 2 and 3.
He conveniently (intentionally?) misquotes Pope Pius IX in his point #1, which effectively nullifies points 2 and 3 - as well as his own little chart. Same crap Fr. Cekada has always done in his attempts to justify all his errors.
No sense to critique the rest of that link, it's all crap.
Do you disagree then that "I. You must believe the teachings of both the solemn and the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church (Vatican I)."?No, I do not disagree.
No, I do not disagree.Which quote do you believe is incorrect?
That has nothing to do with Fr. Cekada intentionally(?) misquoting Pope Pius IX to spread error- which is a tactic he employs regularly. You need to beware of that whenever you read or hear anything from him.
Rahner was HONEST ... even if heretical. He had every reason to distort the historical / Patristic record, but he wouldn't do it because he had a certain amount of intellectual integrity that most Traditionalist BoDers lack.
Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.
Which quote do you believe is incorrect?Section V, item #1. Read what Fr. Cekada said the pope said, then read what the pope actually taught, and you will see the blatant misquote which in my opinion, was intentional.
Section V, item #1. Read what Fr. Cekada said the pope said, then read what the pope actually taught, and you will see the blatant misquote which in my opinion, was intentional.
With that misquote, Fr. Cekada is accusing the pope of preaching a NO doctrine.
II. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith (Pius IX).
• “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1683.
III. You must also subject yourself to the Holy See’s doctrinal decisions and to other forms of doctrine commonly held as theological truths and conclusions. (Pius IX).Which of these quotes are you saying is incorrect?
• “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
Section V, item #1 is a summary of Section I:II-IIISection V, item #1, attributed to Pope Pius IX as quoted from the link (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf): "All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by a common consent, or hold it as de fide, or Catholic Doctrine, or theologically certain."
Which of these quotes are you saying is incorrect?
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdfModern theologians categorize? How does that stack up against the teaching of Christ that without water and the Holy Spirit, anathema? Bod is a contradiction, denies the omnipotence of God, the necessity of Baptism, and was never held or taught in antiquity, except to be redressed by Augustine who soundly tossed it in the round file. People who promote bod do so at the expense of the ignorant and unbaptized who might otherwise take greater pains to get the Sacrament of Baptism.
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/information/BoD1.png)
Sections II, III, and IV in the linked article (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf) clearly demonstrate the both Baptism of Desire and of Blood are "held by common consent".So what, we do not owe our submission of faith to anything on account of the common consent of theologians - if we did, we'd all be NO because the common consent of theologians all hold the NO to be de fide.
Sections II, III, and IV in the linked article (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf) clearly demonstrate the both Baptism of Desire and of Blood are "held by common consent".Who cares what Cekada thinks? He's no authority. His argument is in part with the Feeneyites and flawed throughout. For instance he says:
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, on The Sacraments, Question 68 - Of Those Who Receive Baptism, Second Article - Whether a Man Can Be Saved without Baptism?The council fathers at Trent placed Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica on the altar during their deliberations. Do you somehow think your theological reasoning is superior to Saint 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 wish to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacraments, in regard to those who have the use of 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 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 grace he prayed for."
The council fathers at Trent placed Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica on the altar during their deliberations. Do you somehow think your theological reasoning is superior to Saint Thomas Aquinas?The Church also teaches that St. Thomas and St. Augustine do not constitute the Church, exclusive of Church. Believing them to the point of contradiction of Catholic teaching also brings anathema.
Are you posturing that the canons and decrees from the Council of Trent are in anyway opposed to the positions expressed by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica?Indeed I do. The Church trumps St. Thomas. (Although She usually doesn't have to) St. Thomas is not the Church. In fact, Trent took care of any speculation St. Thomas had about bod and basically said, "no".
Indeed I do. The Church trumps St. Thomas. (Although She usually doesn't have to) St. Thomas is not the Church. In fact, Trent took care of any speculation St. Thomas had about bod and basically said, "no".I would reply in opposition to your opinion, in that the Council of Trent clearly agrees with Saint Thomas Aquinas, as does every Pope and Church theologian since the council (up to, of course, the Second Vatican council).
I would reply in opposition to your opinion, in that the Council of Trent clearly agrees with Saint Thomas Aquinas, as does every Pope and Church theologian since the council (up to, of course, the Second Vatican council).The Council of Trent was quite explicit when they said whoever says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation and are superfluous, is anathema. Is a BOD the eighth sacrament now?
Other than your own misguided conjecture, can you provide a single authoritative Church reference that expressly denies Baptism of Desire?
CODEX IURIS CANONICI
LIBER TERTIUS
DE REBUS
PARS PRIMA.
DE SACRAMENTIS.
TITULUS I.
De baptismo.
CAN. 737.
§ 1. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cuм praescripta verborum forma.
§ 2. cuм ministratur servatis omnibus ritibus et caeremoniis quae in ritualibus libris praecipiuntur, appellatur sollemnis; secus, non sollemnis seu privutus.
"632. Baptism - the door and foundation of all other Sacraments, the Sacrament which, if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired - is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and the pronouncing of the prescribed form of words. Baptism administered with the observance of all the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the ritual is called solemn; otherwise it is called not solemn, or private (Canon 737)."
"Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, - either really or by desire - and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized. This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient."
I would reply in opposition to your opinion, in that the Council of Trent clearly agrees with Saint Thomas Aquinas, as does every Pope and Church theologian since the council (up to, of course, the Second Vatican council).I can think of lots of them.
Other than your own misguided conjecture, can you provide a single authoritative Church reference that expressly denies Baptism of Desire?
… a single authoritative Church reference that expressly denies Baptism of Desire?What I'm looking for is something that explicitly uses the term "Baptism of Desire" in the discourse.
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the opportunity offers, the obligation remains on one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.
· "Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire of Baptism by water";
· "Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by water";
· "Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial and temporal punishment..."
- "Baptism of Desire ... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition..."
- "These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood & Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament."
"...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith..."
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)."
"Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition however have the power to confer sanctifying grace."
"The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: 'He who loves me, is loved by my Father.' (John 14:21)"
"Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition includeing a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that, the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins."
"Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called 'of desire' (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation."
"Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water ... Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto)."
What I asked for was...What I'm looking for is something that explicitly uses the term "Baptism of Desire" in the discourse.You said: "What I asked for was...What I'm looking for is something that explicitly uses the term "Baptism of Desire" in the discourse."
Again, your lay conjecture is absolutely meaningless compared to the numerous authoritative declarations by Church theologians.
Fr. A. Tanquery, Dogmatic Brevior, ART.IV, Section I,II - 1945 (1024-1)
Fr. Dominic Prummer, O.P., Moral Theology, 1949
Fr. Francis O'Connell, Outlines of Moral Theology - 1953
Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931
Fr. H. Noldin, S.J. - Fr. A. Schmit, S.J., Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis); Bk 2 Quaestio prima - 1929
Fr. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J., Theologiae moralis (Vol. III, Tractatus II) - 1948
Fr. Ludovico Billot, S.J., De Ecclesiae Sacramentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931
Fr. Eduardus Genicot, S.J., Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol II); Tractatus XII - 1902
Fr. Aloysia Sabetti, S.J. Fr. Timotheo Barrett, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis; Tractatus XII De Baptismo (Chap. 1) - 1926
So, Lover of Truth is back?Lol. Could be a LOT in JAM.
In an allocution to the cardinals on the Consistory of the 17th of December, 1847, Pius IX. congratulated the sacred college on the renewal of a cordial understanding with Spain, by means of which he had been enabled to appoint a number of bishops in that country once so devoted to the Church. He alluded too to the favorable appearance of the Catholic cause in Russia, and repudiated certain theories ascribed to him. Against religious indifferentism so zealously advocated in our days, and made as it were a state creed, he said : "It is assuredly not unknown to you, venerable brethren, that in our times many of the enemies of the Catholic faith especially direct their efforts toward placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or of confounding it therewith, and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions.
But quite recently, we shudder to say it, men have appeared who have thrown such reproaches upon our name and apostolic dignity, that they do not hesitate to slander us, as if we shared in their folly and favored the aforesaid most wicked system. From the measures, in no' wise incompatible with the sanctity of the Catholic religion, which, in certain affairs relating to the civil government of the Pontifical States, we thought fit in kindness to adopt, as tending to the public advantage and prosperity, and from the amnesty graciously bestowed upon some of the subjects of the same States at the beginning of our pontificate, it appears that these men have desired to infer that we think so benevolently concerning every, class of mankind, as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life."
We are at a loss from horror to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done us. We do indeed love all mankind with the inmost affection of our heart, yet not otherwise than in the love of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who came to seek and to save that which had perished, who died for all, who wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth ; who therefore sent his disciples into the whole world to preach the gospel to every creature, proclaiming that they who should believe and be baptized should be saved, but they who should believe not should be condemned ; who therefore will be saved let them come to the pillar and ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which in its bishops and in the Roman Pontiff, the chief head of all, has the succession of apostolical authority, never at any time interrupted; which has never counted aught of greater moment than to preach and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaim ed by the apostles, by Christ's command; which, from the apostles' time downward, has increased in the midst of difficulties of every kind ; and being illustrious through out the whole world by the splendor of miracles, multiplied by the blood of martyrs, exalted by the virtues of confessors and virgins, strengthened by the most wise testimonies of the fathers, hath flourished and doth flourish in all the regions of the earth, and shines refulgent in the perfect unity of the faith, of sacraments, and of holy discipline."
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”
"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?
To this question we give the following answer: "Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in his infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas.)
S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance." From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam praemissae." To give an example. The Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The true Religion and its dogmas:—
"This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, heaven will be, his home for eternity." We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely: "This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX.. In his Allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: "It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."
Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX. is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX. say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX. teach quite the contrary in the following words, which the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., quotes pp. 163-166?
"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church—which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord—will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which he chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity...
"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that he will throw down the wall of separation, that he will scatter the darkness of error, and that he will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."
Now does not Pius IX. say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found." And in his Allocution to the Cardinals held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX. says: "Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her Bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep, and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command . . . . . . We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THIS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH AND SALVATION." Now does not Pius IX. teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved, they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church?
Again, does not Pius IX. most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? that the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? that she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands, to shine in the kingdom of God? that the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX." To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it." If, in these words, Pius IX. says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX. thereby teach that such invincibly ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation—all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained? Pius IX. has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times," says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently—we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."
Mark well, Pius IX. uttered these solemn words against "certain men," whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith,—he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see"? The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX., from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions. (See Preface)
Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.
The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.
Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Saviour, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin." (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.
But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.
Hence Pius IX. said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."
Mark well, Pius IX. uttered these solemn words against "certain men," whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith,—he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see"? The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX., from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions. (See Preface)
Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.
99% of the people who promote BOD do not even believe that a desire to be baptized is necessary for salvation, nor a desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. They believe that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jєωs etc., can be saved without "a desire to be baptized, nor a desire to be a Catholic, or belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity".
If you are sincere as you say, ponder on that, for that is the REAL SUBJECT to be debated with the promoters of BOD, and not some catechumen who got run over by a bus on his way to be baptized.
One cannot persist in claiming Baptism of Desire applies to the pagan, the Jєω, the Moslem, the heretic, the schismatic.I can't imagine who would. Has this been said by the new church? The 99% statistic is surely fictitious. Near every reference I've seen to Baptism of Desire notes how extraordinary it would be.
If anyone states that Pius IX taught salvation BY invicible ignorance, that souls can remain in such a state, and be saved in such a state, you slander the Pope.
You slander the Apostolic See.
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Lk 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(Jn 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Lk 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.'(2 Pt 2.1.) "
Ok, thanks for your reply. You don't have any authoritative references for your speculation. You imagine in your own mind a contradiction and then expect others to adopt your views. You offer nothing compelling other than your own view in contrast to well established Church teaching. So, for myself, and I would hope others, the safer course would be to remain aligned with the long-standing Church teaching on the topic. Thank you for the exercise. Enjoy your time remaining.No problem. My authority is the Church, not speculation of the Saints. Bod is not a doctrine. I imagine nothing in my own mind because I see the results of bod with my own eyes in fellow Catholics. Not only is what I've said compelling, the dismissal of it without response is proof in and of itself that it hit a nerve. Thanks back.
I can't imagine who would. Has this been said by the new church? The 99% statistic is surely fictitious. Near every reference I've seen to Baptism of Desire notes how extraordinary it would be.
I can't imagine who would. Has this been said by the new church? The 99% statistic is surely fictitious. Near every reference I've seen to Baptism of Desire notes how extraordinary it would be.
The attitude of the Catholic Church towards pagans, Mohammedans and Jєωs has always been clear — there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Even supposing a person were invincibly ignorant of the true Church, he must still follow the natural law to be saved (implicit baptism of desire).
Baptism of desire, in other words, is equated with perfect charity or perfect contrition.
Q: What happened to the concept that we must go out and convert protestants, Jєωs, etc. to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. In my early years, God sent me to many souls to “preach” to to lead them to the Cathoic Church.
R: Obviously, we’re still obliged to do this.
After all, how many Catholics, still less non-Catholics, have perfect contrition?
So, the missionary apostolate of preaching and converting souls to the one, true faith must ever continue.
Baptism of desire
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water. For example, with baptism of blood or desire, you do not receive the character of baptism. You only receive the grace, which means that those who die with these baptisms go to heaven–because they are united with Christ–but they will not have this wonderful and impressive gift which we call the character. It's noteworthy to see that this is the main reason why certain Fathers of the Church, including St. John Chrysostom, teach that the Blessed Virgin was baptized. She did not need baptism because she did not have Original Sin, but in order to receive the other sacraments, it makes sense that she would have received what allows us to receive the other sacraments: the character of baptism. This is not part of a definition about the Blessed Virgin Mary and we are not bound by the Faith to believe this, but we do have Fathers of the Church who went so far as to say that our Lord baptized St. Peter and then the Blessed Virgin Mary, or that St. Peter baptized our Lady and the rest of the Apostles.
At any rate, it may be surprising, but it is important that these things be clear in our mind. Today, we have so many surprising theories around, and so we must hold fast to what the Church has always taught. And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Catholic Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
This a joke?I don't have any difficulty with the links and quotes you provided.
CMRI
http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml
Fr. Cekada
http://www.fathercekada.com/2008/10/29/baptism-of-desire-perfect-charity-or-contrition/
...
Pope Pius IX said,
(. . .)
Specifically, that they "are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."
6.
(. . .)
But the numerous and violent storms which have been let loose against the Church in the countries long illuminated by the light of the Gospel have brought injury on the works designed to civilize barbarous nations. Many causes, indeed, have combined to diminish the number and generosity of the associates. And, indeed, when so many perverse opinions are scattered abroad among the masses, sharpening their appetites for earthly happiness and banishing the hope of heavenly goods, what can be expected of those who use their minds to invent pleasures and their bodies to realize them? Do men like these pour forth their prayers to God that in His mercy he may bring to the Divine light of the Gospel by His victorious grace the people sitting in the darkness? Do they contribute subsidies to the priests who labor and do combat for the faith? The misfortunes of the time also have helped to diminish the generous impulses of pious persons themselves, partly because through the abounding of iniquity the love of many has waxed cold, and partly because political disturbances (without counting the fear of still worse times) have rendered the majority of them more bent on economy and less liberal in giving of their substance.
I don't have any difficulty with the links and quotes you provided.
The following ideas were specifically condemned...
"III. Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -Allocution Maxima quidem, June 9, 1862; Damnatio Multiplices inter, June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -Encyclical Qui pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -Encyclical Quanto conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -Encyclical Noscitis, Dec. 8, 1849."
#16 - Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation - is a false statement. No Catholic would disagree.
Read it again.
What of number 16?
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God.
Archbishop Lefebvre
1. I am the LORD your God:
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.
Those outside the Catholic Church can be saved through invincible ignorance; not because they are following a false religion but in spite of it. Why did Christ come down to earth, endure His Passion and death on the cross and establish His own Church if all religions are vehicles of salvation? A Ford or Chevy can take you across the country but you need to take a rocket to get to the moon. In other matters there is a choice. In charting a flight to heaven, we have to play by God's rules, not our own.
CMRI"can be", meaning it is possible; "through" their invincible ignorance, not by it or with it, "in spite of it", because they "are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace".
Fr. Dominic Radecki and Francisco Radecki,
Those outside the Catholic Church can be saved through invincible ignorance; not because they are following a false religion but in spite of it. Why did Christ come down to earth, endure His Passion and death on the cross and establish His own Church if all religions are vehicles of salvation?
no. for us, there is no exception, but for God, there is no restriction.
Pope Pius IX said,
Specifically, that they "are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."
CMRI
Fr. Dominic Radecki and Francisco Radecki,
What has happened to the Catholic Church? (Kindle Locations 1631-1635). St. Joseph's Media. Kindle Edition.
Asking for the third time.....
The words of God, Who is Truth Himself, said: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
So the only question anyone needs to answer, is: Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Yes or no.
Asking for the third time.....The answer is no.
The words of God, Who is Truth Himself, said: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
So the only question anyone needs to answer, is: Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Yes or no.
3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
respondit Iesus amen amen dico tibi nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei
Nowhere does the Pope teach Pelagianism ... as you try to slander him as doing.Ladislaus, I don't appreciate your misrepresentations.
What the Pope is saying that by the virtue (aka power) of divine LIGHT and GRACE, such as these who place no obstacle to their salvation, can be saved.
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
"through" their invincible ignorance, not by it or with it, "in spite of it"
Radecki promotes heresy here. No one can be saved THROUGH ignorance. Ignorance cannot be salvific but merely exculpatory. Even LoT used to concede this. To claim that ignorance saves is nothing short of blatant Pelagian heresy. It also contradicts Pius IX who teaches that they are saved not by their ignorance but by the action of DIVINE LIGHT.You are misrepresenting what Father Radecki said. Ignorance is not salvific, no one is saying that.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, on The Sacraments, Question 68 - Of Those Who Receive Baptism, Second Article - Whether a Man Can Be Saved without Baptism?
"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 wish to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacraments, in regard to those who have the use of 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 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 grace he prayed for."
So God said man cannot get to heaven without the sacrament of baptism, you say that you agree that man cannot get to heaven without the sacrament of baptism, then you say the Church explains God, who is Himself, truth, means something other than what He explicitly said.QuoteAsking for the third time.....
The words of God, Who is Truth Himself, said: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
So the only question anyone needs to answer, is: Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?
Yes or no.
The answer is no.
The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._John (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._John/Chapter-3.html)
This is explained by the Church in the quotes I provided. To "enter into the kingdom of God" a man must "be born again of water and the Holy Ghost", which is the sacrament of Baptism. Should the man be forestalled from receiving the sacrament of Baptism by an untimely death, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explained, "such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism," because "God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly."
Ladislaus, Stubborn,No.
Do you accept what Saint Thomas Aquinas is saying in the quote above?
Yes or no
"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 wish to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacraments, in regard to those who have the use of 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 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 grace he prayed for."
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, on The Sacraments,
Question 68 - Of Those Who Receive Baptism,
Second Article - Whether a Man Can Be Saved without Baptism?
Again, the answer is very simple, read it again, slowlyIt is very simple, we have God Himself saying:
Do you, or do you not, accept this? Yes or No
The answer is no.
The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._John (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._John/Chapter-3.html)
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._John/Chapter-3.html)This is explained by the Church in the quotes I provided. To "enter into the kingdom of God" a man must "be born again of water and the Holy Ghost", which is the sacrament of Baptism. Should the man be forestalled from receiving the sacrament of Baptism by an untimely death, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explained, "such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism," because "God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly."
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
"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 wish to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacraments, in regard to those who have the use of 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 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 grace he prayed for."
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 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.'
CAN. 737.
§ 1. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cuм praescripta verborum forma.
§ 2. cuм ministratur servatis omnibus ritibus et caeremoniis quae in ritualibus libris praecipiuntur, appellatur sollemnis; secus, non sollemnis seu privutus.Quote"Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, - either really or by desire - and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized. This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient."
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD2.png)
You are misrepresenting what Father Radecki said. Ignorance is not salvific, no one is saying that.
So there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Baptism of Desire and of Blood are truths of the Catholic Church that can not be denied.
(http://TraditionalCatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD1.png)^^^^Fr. Cekada is guilty of this.
Baptism of Desire and Theological Principals by Rev. Anthony Cekada
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
Those outside the Catholic Church can be saved
Radecki's heresy:It is you that denies Catholic Truth.
This is a word-for-word denial of Catholic dogma promoted by Radecki ... and endorsed by JAM.
It is you that denies Catholic Truth.
Constitutions
1. Confession of Faith
(. . .)
There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors. But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity — namely Father, Son and holy Spirit — and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church. If someone falls into sin after having received baptism, he or she can always be restored through true penitence. For not only virgins and the continent but also married persons find favour with God by right faith and good actions and deserve to attain to eternal blessedness.
1. How great a dignity the Lord bestows on you in transferring you from the order of Catechumens to that of the Faithful, the Apostle Paul shows, when he affirms, God is faithful, by Whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:9 For since God is called Faithful, thou also in receiving this title receive a great dignity. For as God is called Good, and Just, and Almighty, and Maker of the Universe, so is He also called Faithful. Consider therefore to what a dignity you are rising, seeing you are to become partaker of a title of God.
3.
(. . .)
What advantages it to be bound by the ties of earthly family, if we are not joined by those of the spiritual? What profits nearness of kin on earth, if we are to be strangers in heaven? For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven. One has Christ for his King; the other, sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes; one has worms' work for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other. Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion? Did we remove the same pangs, did we come forth from the same womb? This has nothing to do with that most perfect relationship. Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city which is above. How long do we tarry over the border, when we ought to reclaim our ancient country? We risk no common danger; for if it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.
II. Christians are essentially participators in the nativity of Christ
Although, therefore, that infancy, which the majesty of God's Son did not disdain, reached mature manhood by the growth of years and, when the triumph of His passion and resurrection was completed, all the actions of humility which were undertaken for us ceased, yet today's festival renews for us the holy childhood of Jesus born of the Virgin Mary: and in adoring the birth of our Saviour, we find we are celebrating the commencement of our own life. For the birth of Christ is the source of life for Christian folk, and the birthday of the Head is the birthday of the body. Although every individual that is called has his own order, and all the sons of the Church are separated from one another by intervals of time, yet as the entire body of the faithful being born in the font of baptism is crucified with Christ in His passion, raised again in His resurrection, and placed at the Father's right hand in His ascension, so with Him are they born in this nativity. For any believer in whatever part of the world that is re-born in Christ, quits the old paths of his original nature and passes into a new man by being re-born; and no longer is he reckoned of his earthly father's stock but among the seed of the Saviour, Who became the Son of man in order that we might have the power to be the sons of God.
7. For as to those whose soul and heart were one, I ask whether they were one through faith in God? Yes, assuredly, through faith, for through this the soul and heart of all were one. Again I ask, is the faith one or is there a second faith? One undoubtedly, and that on the authority of the Apostle himself, who proclaims one faith even as one Lord, and one baptism, and one hope, and one God. Ephesians 4:4-5 If then it is through faith, that is, through the nature of one faith, that all are one, how is it that you do not understand a natural unity in the case of those who through the nature of one faith are one? For all were born again to innocence, to immortality, to the knowledge of God, to the faith of hope. And if these things cannot differ within themselves because there is both one hope and one God, as also there is one Lord and one baptism of regeneration; if these things are one rather by agreement than by nature, ascribe a unity of will to those also who have been born again into them. If, however, they have been begotten again into the nature of one life and eternity, then, inasmuch as their soul and heart are one, the unity of will fails to account for their case who are one by regeneration into the same nature.
8. These are not our own conjectures which we offer, nor do we falsely put together any of these things in order to deceive the ears of our hearers by perverting the meaning of words; but holding fast the form of sound teaching we know and preach the things which are true. For the Apostle shows that this unity of the faithful arises from the nature of the sacraments when he writes to the Galatians, For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There is neither Jєω nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27-28 That these are one amid so great diversities of race, condition, sex — is it from an agreement of will or from the unity of the sacrament, since these have one baptism and have all put on one Christ? What, therefore, will a concord of minds avail here when they are one in that they have put on one Christ through the nature of one baptism?
10.
(. . .)
Indeed no true and perfect human society can be conceived which is not governed by some supreme authority. Christ therefore must have given to His Church a supreme authority to which all Christians must render obedience. For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino. “The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head” (St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I). From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. “We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism” (writes St. Jerome): “heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church” (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 1011). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: “I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy” (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5). Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. “There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism….there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church” (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25).
(. . .)
59. What We have said concerning the “mystical Head” would indeed be incomplete if We were not at least briefly to touch on this saying of the same Apostle: “Christ is the Head of the Church: he is the Savior of his Body.” For in these words we have the final reason why the Body of the Church is given the name of Christ, namely, that Christ is the Divine Savior of this Body. The Samaritans were right in proclaiming Him “Savior of the world”; for indeed He most certainly is to be called the “Savior of all men,” even though we must add with Paul: “especially of the faithful, since, before all others, He has purchased with His Blood His members who constitute the Church.
I answer that, When a man enters the Church by Baptism, he is admitted to two things, viz. the body of the faithful and the participation of the sacraments: and this latter presupposes the former, since the faithful are united together in the participation of the sacraments.
1.
(. . .)
I shall now begin to instruct you on the sacrament you have received; of whose nature it was not fitting to speak to you before this: for in the Christian what comes first is faith. And at Rome for this reason those who have been baptized are called the faithful (fideles).
If BODers want to be taken seriously they should stop taking theologians speculating on the salvation of Catechumens as proof of modernist BOD. They're two completely different beasts. Catechumens still believe in the Catholic faith and have every intention and desire of being baptised as soon as possible. Many, but certainly not all, said Catechumens might be saved(although and many spoke against it too). But that does in no way mean that non-Catholics with no desire for Baptism are somehow saved based off a belief in a "God that rewards" as Francis termed it. There is no basis for that, and it's a blatant denial of EENS.https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/)
"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 wish to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacraments, in regard to those who have the use of 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 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 grace he prayed for."
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, on The Sacraments, Question 68 - Of Those Who Receive Baptism, Second Article
CAN. 737.
§ 1. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cuм praescripta verborum forma.
§ 2. cuм ministratur servatis omnibus ritibus et caeremoniis quae in ritualibus libris praecipiuntur, appellatur sollemnis; secus, non sollemnis seu privutus.
"632. Baptism - the door and foundation of all other Sacraments, the Sacrament which, if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired - is given validly only by ablution with truly natural water and the pronouncing of the prescribed form of words. Baptism administered with the observance of all the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the ritual is called solemn; otherwise it is called not solemn, or private (Canon 737)."
A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON THE COSE OF CANON LAW, by Rev. Stanislaus Woywod, O.F.M., LL.B.
"Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, - either really or by desire - and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized. This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient."
A COMMENTARY ON CANON LAW, VOLUME FOUR, by The Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, O.S.B, D.D.
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
And again, of course, the Council of Trent clearly addressed this topic.
And again, of course, the Council of Trent clearly addressed this topic.
Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):In your first quote, you will find that; 1) the sacraments are necessary for salvation and 2) if you say without the sacrament or the desire for it, through faith alone men obtain the grace of justification, you're anathema.
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and [if anyone shall say] that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
And of course you distort and misinterpret Trent to suit your agenda.My only agenda is to follow the Church's teaching on the topic.
In your first quote, you will find that; 1) the sacraments are necessary for salvation and 2) if you say without the sacrament or the desire for it, through faith alone men obtain the grace of justification, you're anathema.For myself, the safer position is to conform with the explanation of Saint Thomas Aquinas on this topic. I fully understand you disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas.
In your second quote, the key word/subject matter you need to hone in on, is justification.
In either case, these quotes both confirm that the sacrament is necessary for salvation.
For myself, the safer position is to conform with the explanation of Saint Thomas Aquinas on this topic. I fully understand you disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas.Then now that you see that the Church (Trent) in no way taught salvation via a BOD, you should never again quote from Trent as if they taught a BOD.
QuoteCanons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."
Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
Canon 4 refers to, as you even quoted yourself, Sacraments in general. Ergo for that canon to prove desire for Baptism can replace Baptism, then Matrimony of Desire or Holy Orders of Desire must also be doctrines according to your twisted logic. So your canon cannot be proof for Baptism of Desire. All it proves is that SOME Sacraments can be received in desire, namely Reconciliation. Trent explains Reconciliation can be received in desire in other canons while also explicitly stating that the waters of Baptism cannot be metaphorical. Ergo, your canon does not prove Baptism of Desire and Trent does not support it in any way(and in fact refutes it, as BOD requires metaphorical water).
Regarding Baptism and Justification, the Council of Trent clearly mentions a) reception of the sacrament, or b) a desire for it.
a) sacramental baptism
b) a baptism of desire
Canon 4 refers to, as you even quoted yourself, Sacraments in general. Ergo for that canon to prove desire for Baptism can replace Baptism, then Matrimony of Desire or Holy Orders of Desire must also be doctrines according to your twisted logic. So your canon cannot be proof for Baptism of Desire. All it proves is that SOME Sacraments can be received in desire, namely Reconciliation. Trent explains Reconciliation can be received in desire in other canons while also explicitly stating that the waters of Baptism cannot be metaphorical. Ergo, your canon does not prove Baptism of Desire and Trent does not support it in any way(and in fact refutes it, as BOD requires metaphorical water).I'm not going to argue your position. I disagree. The Church has repeatedly taught Baptism of Desire in very specific instances. I am adhering to the long standing teaching by the Church. There is nothing you can say to change that.
The Church has repeatedly taught Baptism of Desire in very specific instances. I am adhering to the long standing teaching by the Church.
The answer is no.
The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._John (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._John/Chapter-3.html)
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._John/Chapter-3.html)This is explained by the Church in the quotes I provided. To "enter into the kingdom of God" a man must "be born again of water and the Holy Ghost", which is the sacrament of Baptism. Should the man be forestalled from receiving the sacrament of Baptism by an untimely death, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explained, "such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism," because "God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly."
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/John3anno.jpg)
18. Is judged already: He that believeth in Christ with Faith which worketh by charity (as the Apostle speaketh) shall not be condemned at the later day nor at the hour of his death. But the Infidel, be he Jєω, Pagan, or Heretic, is already (if he die in his incredulity) by his own profession and sentence condemned, and shall not come to judgement either particular or general, to be discussed according to his works of mercy done or omitted. In which sense St. Paul saith that the obstinate heretic is condemned by his own judgement, preventing in himself, of his own free will, the sentence both of Christ and of the Church.
Yes; but the teaching is permitted specifically in the case of catechumens who depart this life with vow and desire to have the water Baptism but by "some remediless necessity could not obtain it".I agree with you. In so far as Church teaching explains, a baptism of desire (though not unheard of) would be very rare indeed. Thank you for your kind reply.
Even if you would like to argue that such vow can be implicit; the dying person must need to have the knowledge of the Sacrament to begin with. He needs to know the truths necessary for salvation. For how one can desire something one absolutely knows nothing of? The Baptism of desire is the conscious "desire" of the water Baptism for an hypothetical, dying, and unfortunate catechumen.
If you notice, right after this paragraph on Baptism, on the very same page, we find the timeless teaching of the Church that every Infidel, Jєω, Pagan or Heretic, is judged already".
"...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 tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly."
Dear Mr. JohnAnthonyMarie,I feel neither obsessed nor bothered by defending truth. In the same sense, this is neither a life mission nor a conversion attempt. I am simply providing accurate information on a topic of discussion.
What is the reason for your obsession with teaching people that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism or belief in Christ and the Incarnation? What bothers you so much about the people who believe that one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace at death to be saved, that it has become your life's mission to "convert" them?
Dear Mr. JohnAnthonyMarie,JohnAnthonyMarie answered - I feel neither obsessed nor bothered by defending truth. In the same sense, this is neither a life mission nor a conversion attempt. I am simply providing accurate information on a topic of discussion.
What is the reason for your obsession with teaching people that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism or belief in Christ and the Incarnation? What bothers you so much about the people who believe that one must be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace at death to be saved, that it has become your life's mission to "convert" them?
JohnAnthonyMarie answered - I feel neither obsessed nor bothered by defending truth. In the same sense, this is neither a life mission nor a conversion attempt. I am simply providing accurate information on a topic of discussion.
LT asks: then "your truth, your accurate information", is that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism or belief in Christ and the Incarnation, that one does not have to be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace to be saved?(https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/genuinely-curious-rejection-of-baptism-and-the-council-of-trent/188/?action=reporttm;msg=612668)
I asked you if this is what you believe, I do not need to know why you believe it, that is too long and complicated. Please just answer my question:yourThe truth,yourthe accurate information, would (again) be exactly as Saint Thomas Aquinas describes, "...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 tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly." I would agree that "people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism", but I, myself, could not go so far as saying without "belief in Christ and the Incarnation". God alone knows.
Canon IV: "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous ... let him be anathema."no, I can't agree with your conjecture. I have no difficulty whatsoever with Canon IV, but I disagree with you that it "condemns with anathema" baptism of desire. In fact, the canon specifically says, "or without the desire thereof".
Per the above quote from Trent, the sacraments ("though all the sacraments are not indeed necessary for every individual") are necessary unto salvation. This is indisputable.
Canon IV continued: And if any one saith that "without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification...let him be anathema."
Per the above quote from Trent, the Church teaches that without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, we do not obtain from God through faith alone, even the grace of justification, let alone eternal salvation. This quote condemns with anathema those who preach a BOD.
Nowhere does Trent (the Church) teach that salvation is both necessary and not necessary without the sacrament, rather, it explicitly condemns with anathema those who say salvation is possible without the sacrament.
Can we at least agree on that?
I asked you if this is what you believe, I do not need to know why you believe it, that is too long and complicated. Please just answer my question:I answered your question, but I'll repeat, no, that's not what I believe. I said, "I would agree that 'people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism', but I could not go so far as saying without 'belief in Christ and the Incarnation'." Like I said, God alone knows, and if God so wills it, anything can be done.
LT asks: then "your truth, your accurate information", is that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism or belief in Christ and the Incarnation, that one does not have to be a sacramentally baptized Catholic in a state of grace to be saved?
, "I would agree that 'people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism', but I could not go so far as saying without 'belief in Christ and the Incarnation'."
no, I can't agree with your conjecture. I have no difficulty whatsoever with Canon IV, but I disagree with you that it "condemns with anathema" baptism of desire. In fact, the canon specifically says, "or without the desire thereof".Of course it says "or without the desire thereof" - but you have to admit that that is not the only thing it says.
I said, "I would agree that 'people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism', but I could not go so far as saying without 'belief in Christ and the Incarnation'." Like I said, God alone knows, and if God so wills it, anything can be done.If you say God alone knows, then you really do not know for sure if a person can or can't be saved without the sacrament of baptism and belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity, so there's nothing to hold you back from believing pretty much anything.
We know dogmatically that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Even if one entertains the remote possibility of a salvific Baptism of Desire operating in a dying catechumen, I don't think one can safely say that such dying catechumen was saved without Baptism; only that the vow supplied it at last minute.I'm comfortable with this.
That is a far as we can safely go.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/dogmatic-decrees-we-will-interpret-them-to-our-desires/)
Dogmatic Decrees? We Will Interpret Them to Our Desires
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Here are excerpts from some dogmas on EENS and how they are responded to (in red) by BODers who in the end are all teaching that Jєωs, Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhists, indeed person in all false religions, can be saved by their belief in a god the rewards. Enjoy.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” [/color](pagans and Jєωs can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, thus they are in the Church. They can’t be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ, but they can be saved by a belief in a god that rewards.)
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …(Persons in all false religions can be part of the faithful by their belief in a God that rewards)
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Persons in all false religions by their belief in a God that rewards are inside the Church, so they can have remission of sin. They do not have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff because they do not even know that they have to be baptized Catholics, why further complicate things for tem with submission to the pope?)
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” (one lord, one faith by their belief in a God that rewards, and one invisible baptism by, you guessed it, their belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.” ( the Catholic faith is belief in a God that rewards)
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.” ( Just pick a few from the above excuses, from here on it’s a cake walk, just create your own burger with the above ingredients. You’ll be an expert at it in no time.)
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). (this means you do not need to be baptized or have a desire to be baptized. You can be baptized invisible by desire or no desire, you can call no desire implicit desire, you can also receive water baptism with no desire, no, wait a minute that does not go in both directions, it only works for desire or if you have no desire at all. Come to think of it, just forget about all of it, persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards.)
Chapter VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;(except all persons in false religions, they can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (Just ignore that language, all persons in false religions can be justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.( any persons in false religions can be invisible baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema (the pope is also speaking here of the invisible baptism of persons in false religions that are baptized and justified by their belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”( the laver of regeneration can be had invisible and the true faith is belief in a god that rewards)
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who[/size]
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.” ( person who believe in a god that rewards do not need the mark, but they are in the Church. Somehow)
(Oh, I forgot, no one mentions it anymore, it is now out of fashion, so I did not include it above, invincible ignorance. If you are old fashioned, just throw in a few invinble ignorants up there with the rest of the ingredients)
I'm comfortable with this.
Dear JAM,Saint Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church, "considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians".
Keep in mind that St. Thomas (who you quote many times) died before these dogmas on EENS were declared, just as he also died before the declaration of The Immaculate Conception, a theological speculation of his time, which he rejected. Also, the infallibility of dogma was not clear till after Vatican I.
It's heretical to say that someone can be saved without Baptism. Even in the hypothetical case of BoD, the Sacrament of Baptism remains the instrumental cause of justification, operating through the votum. I have repeatedly explained to BoDers how they must formulate BoD theory in order to avoid heresy, but most of them have refused the non-heretical formulation out of pride.No one is saying "someone can be saved without Baptism". What is being said is that baptism, in certain situations, is supplied by the desire to be baptized where unexpected circuмstances prevent reception of the sacrament.
I don't believe in BoD because I believe that the character of Baptism is essential to the grace conferred, that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, that there is no being "within" the Church without being a member of the Church, and because we cannot be adopted children of God and thus enter into the inner life of the Holy Trinity without God recognizing us as His sons ... due to the imprint of His Son's character in our souls.
I'd be much less uncomfortable with a BoD that also posited reception of the character of Baptism.
This sub-forum is ripe with dishonest debate tactics, something so contrary to Catholic charity that I really can't rationalize the sub-forum's presence within this Catholic forum.Unless you provide specific examples, your complaint is just emotionalism, like women who complain about something, not wanting solutions, but just for consolement.
Saint Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church, "considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians".Like I said, your last post, wherein you quote Church doctrine then supply a response in red which you attribute to observers of the Church's teaching on baptism of desire. This is dishonest, a strawman argument. Church teaching isn't a debate, it should be a discussion.
This last post of yours is a classic logical fallacy, the strawman argument, whereby you are attempting to attribute to me something that I have never said. My position on Baptism of Desire is well within the boundaries defined by the Church. No where, and at no time, have I every postured anything contrary to Church teaching. I provide authoritative, on topic, Church references to the discussion, and never ever stray into personal conjecture. This sub-forum is ripe with dishonest debate tactics, something so contrary to Catholic charity that I really can't rationalize the sub-forum's presence within this Catholic forum.
Like I said, your last post, wherein you quote Church doctrine then supply a response in red which you attribute to observers of the Church's teaching on baptism of desire. This is dishonest, a strawman argument. Church teaching isn't a debate, it should be a discussion.I do not know what planet you have been living in, but in this planet, what I wrote is exactly what 99% of all those that defend baptism of desire believe. In all of my years of discussions with people here on CI and elsewhere, the conclusion is that they only hide behind the defense of baptism of desire of the catechumen, when they actual oppose St. Thomas, and teach that people can be saved without any desire to be baptized or Catholic and without belief in the Incarnation (that Jesus Christ is God) and the Holy Trinity. The SSPX, and all the sede groups (Cekada is one of them) teach the same. It is what Abp. Lefebvre learned, believed and taught all of his ordained like Cekada.
I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. (Pope Francis)