Author Topic: Great article on "Baptism of Desire." (Read 20764 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #60 on:** June 21, 2011, 12:23:12 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

The question is actually rather easily solved. Since Catholic theologians unanimously teach Baptism of Blood or Desire either as theologically certain, de fide or common consent, we are bound as Catholics to adhere to this doctrine.

If you don´t, then you deny the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This would be certainly heretical.

Everything else will be pretty much beyond us, since we are far from being theologians.

Here is St. Augustine - one of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium - is this what you are trying to say, or doesn't this count?

From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.

St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #61 on:** June 21, 2011, 12:31:13 PM »

I believe as the Church teaches, that He will supply Sanctifying grace to whom He will. To believe otherwise is heresy.

The Church teaches that Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation.

Why do you limit God? He is boundless.

You judge, and you will be judge according to the way you judge. That too, is in the Bible.

Stubborn · « **Reply #62 on:** June 21, 2011, 12:37:44 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I believe as the Church teaches, that He will supply Sanctifying grace to whom He will. To believe otherwise is heresy.

The Church teaches that Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation.

Why do you limit God? He is boundless.

You judge, and you will be judge according to the way you judge. That too, is in the Bible.

I am repeating the words of Our Lord - I am not judging - get that through your head. I am not limiting God - you are when you take Him out of the whole equation and force Him to grant salvation to one unbaptized - understand?

Of course the Church teaches that Sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation - that is not the issue.

Caminus · « **Reply #63 on:** June 21, 2011, 12:39:18 PM »

Have a good day, sir, I hope for you all the best.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #64 on:** June 21, 2011, 12:54:41 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Here is St. Augustine - one of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium - is this what you are trying to say, or doesn't this count?

No, since this is no theological treatise in the strict sense, nor does he make clear if this is the common teaching, de fide etc, nor was there a censuring procedure of the Holy See as we know it from later ages (not saying that his writings would have to be censured).

If we claim St. Augustine as an adversary of BOD, to which he actually makes no reference, morally speaking we still have a unanimous agreement among theologians.

Should the Church have failed in the last 500 and more years to condemn all these major theologians, then she could lead men into error and sin. This is obviously an absurd and condemned proposition.
To hold St. Augustine above the teaching authority of the Holy See and Universal Church is also condemned.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #65 on:** June 21, 2011, 02:10:09 PM »

UNbaptized is not the issure here for there is Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, get that through your head.

JPaul · « **Reply #66 on:** June 21, 2011, 08:55:35 PM »

Quote

Third, there are no accidents to God, nor are there any circuмstances that God has not foreseen from all eternity. One who is Just and about to die unbaptized will get the Sacrament before he dies, to deny that truth exemplifies lack of faith in God. God is not bound by His own law, but we are - and we trust that He will provide what we need no matter what

God in all of His attributes is infinitely perfect. A perfection which is beyond human comprehension. Be it in His goodness, His mercy, or in His justice. What He has revealed through His Son is the same. One can not doubt this. Thus to believe that anything could happen that would require Him to circuмvent His revealed precepts would mean that they were less than perfection in all ways, and as well, that events could happen that were against His Divine Will.

God wills that all men would be saved, and all men will be saved, who would be saved. All, who God has known from all eternity would respond to the grace imparted, through His boundless mercy, that they might find salvation.

The Tradition of the Church is full of many accounts of God and His saints raising children and adults from the dead who were then Baptized, died and went to their reward. All such things serve as wonders which both Glorify God and His perfection.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #67 on:** June 22, 2011, 07:06:29 AM »

Trent: “And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE DESIRE THEREOF [aut eius voto], as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”” (Denz. 796)

Stubborn · « **Reply #68 on:** June 22, 2011, 01:25:04 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

UNbaptized is not the issure here for there is Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, get that through your head.

For whatever it is worth-------in all honesty and sincerity, I try to believe that there is such a thing as a Baptism of Desire - no joke! - and I am not being facetious in the least.

I know there have been plenty of "saints and theologians" - deemed to be the Universal Ordinary Magisterium - which have taught that the Desire to be Baptized will allow one into eternal life. I know this, I believe this is true, I completely understand this - yet published and absolutely clear infallible declarations that contradict this abound so there is really no need to post all of them again for the umpteenth time.

In the interest of having a "personal insult" free debate/discussion, can we at least agree that there is no question that explicit contradictions exist between the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and infallible Papal/Council declarations?

For my part, the whole EENS / BOD / BOB fascinates me and I love discussing / debating it - but prefer to do so against my own biased opinion civilly. (<- is that a word? lol) IOW, in my own private studies regarding BOD/BOB, I am always *for* BOD/BOB, not against them. I guess in my own mind, I try to play the "devil's advocate" - - - - but I continue to come up with the same answer, namely, BOD/BOB needs to be either infallibly explicitly condemned as heretical or infallibly explicitly defined as dogma. Until that happens, there is a contradiction.

As it stands today, IMO - or perhaps better stated - in my *private* interpretations, BOD / BOB fails the test of dogma or even doctrine for many reasons - primarily because BOD / BOD do not even have boundaries...............A priest from SSPX told us from the pulpit that one who was unconscience in a coma, *in a hospital* was saved via BOD. I must note that as that priest taught this, the other priest seated in the Sanctuary visibly put his head in hand and shook his head as if to say "I cannot believe he just said that" - - - - - strictly my opinion mind you - but for all intents and purposes, it was overtly obvious.

Stubborn · « **Reply #69 on:** June 22, 2011, 01:38:50 PM »

The faith teaches that BOD is not a Sacrament - so I am submitting something infallible here that I posted elsewhere in reply to the belief that an unbaptized priest was rewarded salvation via BOD...........

To phrase Trent's Canon in the affirmative, read what is bolded in red.

"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema" (Decree on the Sacraments).

One must FIRST understand what is written FIRST......... Trent declares that the Sacraments are necessary unto salvation - that is what the FIRST part of the canon states ...........but *that* is not enough because one must not only receive the Sacrament, per the second part of the canon, one must also desire to receive the Sacrament worthily, with the proper disposition and with the proper intent. THIS is what the Church has always taught. The Church used to teach that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - somehow, that makes zero sense if you believe in a typical opinion of what BOD is. BTW, BOD is only an opinion with 100s of different definitions - none of which have been defined by the Magisterium infallibly.

To read the canons of Trent where the word "desire" appears in any other light renders the canon absolutely meaningless.

How anyone can take one mistranslated word "desire", and judge that salvation is granted based on this one word, then name that entirely misinterpreted canon a "Baptism of Desire" while completely disregarding all other church teachings to the contrary is beyond me.

One truth that BOD folks cannot brush away is the fact that per Trent, as is bolded in the canon above, the Sacraments are declared "necessary unto Salvation". BOD is no Sacrament. Now here is where they decide that good intentions only pave the road to hell for everyone - except the Catechumen.

FWIW, infants are not able to vow or desire to be baptized, that is one reason that the Church made sponsors (God parents) a requirement when there is no emergency.

These sponsors state their "desire" explicitly in place of the infant, as would an adult being baptized state their vow or desire explicitly during Baptism Rituals - The Solemn Exorcism, Their Renunciation of Satan, Their Profession of Faith, Their Anointing etc.

THIS is the "desire" Trent was speaking of - not some vague implicit intention or wrong belief that puts even unbaptized priests in heaven.

Darcy · « **Reply #70 on:** June 30, 2011, 02:17:54 AM »

This is what I mean by being confused.

All individuals believe that what they believe is correct even if it is a pinch of this or that and of course don't necessarily go on about it but espouse the accepted truth of their congregation faithfully.
Many intelleigentisia love to argue the details of who said what and where and in what context.

Almost all the theologians mentioned bove to be used for reference and inspiration are on the "hit list", for the major heresy of Salvation outside the Church, most specifically salvation is possible for jews and muslims of course but also pagans and savages (some savages are likely NOT to be in our species so it doesn't matter.)

Quote

Below is a list of theologians who denied the Salvation Dogma as indentified by Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was also a salvation heretic.
.....
Scheeben
Billot
Tanquerey
Garrigou-LaGrange
......

I am not fit to argue but if they said so, they so, and it seems that people are picking and choosing based on other areas of apparent wisdom in their writings.

When in doubt, we shoud live by the strictest position, the default position because we are unable at times to know God's will. I hope that is not a heresy somewhere.

I am praying very hard and believe God will give me the Grace that I need and the direction to take.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #71 on:** June 30, 2011, 09:31:03 PM »

Quote from: Darcy

(some savages are likely NOT to be in our species so it doesn't matter.)

I find this statement somewhat perplexing.

How do you define a "savage"?

Would positing that "savages" are "likely NOT to be in our species" constitute a denial of the unicity of the human race?

It is of divine faith that Adam and Eve are the First Parents of the entire human race. To posit the existence of "sub-human" creatures that are not quite brutes but are merely human in accidental appearance would be tantamount to declaring (at least implicitly) that there exists another cosmological economy (in the etymological sense of the word) that is parallel to the present economy ordained by Divine Providence (angelic spirits -> human persons -> brute creatures -> vegetative creatures -> inanimate matter).

I am not saying that this is what you meant to imply, but oftentimes others who make such statements do give the impression that this is the conclusion that is to be deduced from such discredited ethnological theories.

The theory of the existence of "Pre-Adamites" or "Co-Adamites," has been censured as heretical by some theologians: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12370a.htm

JPaul · « **Reply #72 on:** June 30, 2011, 09:50:23 PM »

Quote from: Darcy

This is what I mean by being confused.

All individuals believe that what they believe is correct even if it is a pinch of this or that and of course don't necessarily go on about it but espouse the accepted truth of their congregation faithfully.
Many intelleigentisia love to argue the details of who said what and where and in what context.

Almost all the theologians mentioned bove to be used for reference and inspiration are on the "hit list", for the major heresy of Salvation outside the Church, most specifically salvation is possible for jews and muslims of course but also pagans and savages (some savages are likely NOT to be in our species so it doesn't matter.)

Quote

Below is a list of theologians who denied the Salvation Dogma as indentified by Fr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was also a salvation heretic.
.....
Scheeben
Billot
Tanquerey
Garrigou-LaGrange
......

I am not fit to argue but if they said so, they so, and it seems that people are picking and choosing based on other areas of apparent wisdom in their writings.

When in doubt, we shoud live by the strictest position, the default position because we are unable at times to know God's will. I hope that is not a heresy somewhere.

I am praying very hard and believe God will give me the Grace that I need and the direction to take.

Take a step back, and catch your breath. Study the New Testament, and learn the Divine dogmas of the Church which you must believe. They are Divine law, that is to say, that they are the word and will of Christ. There is no higher authority. Do not be confused by theological opinions. The Holy Religion speaks very clearly in its dogmatic pronouncements. Take them exactly as expressed with the meaning imparted by the words which are used to express them.
Theological opinions cannot depart, embellish or qualify, such pronouncements. They can say more about them, however they cannot go beyond or outside of the defined and obvious meaning of these infallible utterances.

Once you know the dogmas, you will be able to discern those speculations which are in accord with them and those which conflict with them.

Christ has spoken clearly in these teachings so that we will not need to be confused.

For instance,

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Clear enough, that is all that one needs to know. What happens to the native, or the Protestant across the road is not our concern. We were not told these things by the Church. They are not relevant to our salvation . All we need to know is that, without any doubt, there is no salvation outside of the ark, and so we must act accordingly to enter the Church and remain faithfully within Her until death.

JMJ

Stubborn · « **Reply #73 on:** July 01, 2011, 10:01:24 AM »

THE MATTER OF "BAPTISM OF DESIRE" - Fr. James Wathen

.............The purpose of this writing is to deal seriously with the idea of "baptism of desire," which, in the mind of many "conservative-minded" Catholics, means that non-Catholics will be saved who, for want of a priest: (a) make a perfect act of contrition at the time of their death; and/or:

(b) make an act of faith, wherein they profess belief in the Catholic religion and express to almighty God, implicitly or explicitly, the desire for Baptism.

In support of this position, those who adhere to it refer to the many catechisms which contain it, and to numerous saints who held it, and, the most forceful argument of all: to the fact that the consensus of theologians, living and dead, was that this view should be accepted as proxima fidei, which means that it is "nearly a doctrine."

The problem with this position is that (a) several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it. (b) two canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it;

(c) there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the idea of "baptism of desire;"

(d) none of those who promote the idea, which they want to call the "doctrine of baptism of desire," explain how it can have the same effect in the soul as the Sacrament has, that is, how it can dispose one for Heaven.

(e) there is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."

(f) if one can baptize oneself by "desire," why can one not baptize oneself with water?

When all is said and done, the undeniable fact is that "baptism of desisre," which has been spoken of and written about favorably for many centuries, is a product of human creation. It was created "for sentimental reasons" and nothing else. It is an escape from, and a circuмvention of, the hard teaching of Christ. His teaching is that, in order to be saved,

(a) a person must truly and firmly believe the teaching of the Catholic Church, which is the teaching of His Gospel,

(b) he must enter the Church by receiving Baptism, and

(c) having entered the Church, he must keep the Commandments of God and the Precepts of the Church,

d) and attain a certain degree of the love of God., and persevere in this state till the end of his life. ..........

Nonno · « **Reply #74 on:** July 01, 2011, 11:49:49 AM »

Such mistakes! . . .