Author Topic: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood  (Read 2276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline An even Seven

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1993
  • Reputation: +855/-590
  • Gender: Male
Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
« on: September 12, 2017, 11:09:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth on Today at 11:58:52 AM
    Quote
    They use the Good Thief as an example.  So according to Feeneyites not only was Augustine wrong for using the example but Alphonse after all that time still didn't see that it was wrong to give the example.  My answer is that I trust Sainted Fathers and Doctors who are in agreement on the same issue and then I bring up Emerentiana for the 20th time with still no response.  She was after the Gospel was promulgated no?  
    The above is perfectly acceptable and frankly, blatently obvious to Catholics.  Where is the problem?

    His response shows that the Saints he quoted and the Roman Catechism contradict eachother and he prefers to ignore one and appeal to the other depending on what he's arguing at the time.

    The Douay Catechism cites as PROOF of BOB the Holy Innocents but the Roman Catechism says that Baptism wasn't obligatory yet when the Holy Innocents were martyred. This would make the Holy Innocents NOT proof of Baptism of Blood.

    Douay Catechism: " Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
        A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ."


    Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +855/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #1 on: September 12, 2017, 11:22:15 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    LOT said: Again.  The "contradiction" is only apparent to 21st century feeneyite lay-bloggers.  Not to the Fathers, Saints, Doctors and Popes.  I wonder why this is so difficult to grasp.
    In his mind there is no contradiction between the Douay and the Roman Catechism here. One clearly says that the Holy Innocents are proof of BOB and the other says there was no law regarding Baptism at the time of the Holy Innocents, therefore being no proof of BOB at all.
    Of course if he were to admit this, he would have to admit that neither of these are infallible and if the Magisterium is contradicted by a Catechism, Saint, Theologian etc..., the Magisterium is the final word on the matter.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +855/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #2 on: September 12, 2017, 12:00:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 'LOT' likes to cite St. Alphonsus because he gives the Holy Innocents as examples Baptism of Blood.

    Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."

    This contradicts the Roman Catechism because it says the Law of Baptism which Jesus gave had not become obligatory yet.

    Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +855/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #3 on: September 12, 2017, 12:27:28 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is another example of contradiction from the very quotes which 'LOT' posts weekly.

       Pope Pius XII (Oct. 29, 1951): Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives: "If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason.



    Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."

    Let's see, Pope Pius XII stated that there is no other way to communicate life (salvation) to the infant than through Baptism. Yet St. Alphonsus states clearly that Martyrdom avails for infants and they may receive Salvation from it. Does he see the contradiction in these two quotes which he spams about every 15th post? No.

    Hopefully he will respond to these points.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales

    Offline Merry

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 225
    • Reputation: +120/-43
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #4 on: September 12, 2017, 07:47:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some people don't know their faith.  And still parade their ignorance around again and again.

    They embarrass themselves.
    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15654
    • Reputation: +7686/-410
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #5 on: September 12, 2017, 11:51:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    If LoT wants to give up his losing case for BoB and BoD he could take up the same kind of arguments in a different topic by becoming a flat-earther. 
    .
    Maybe he's already a flat-earther but just doesn't have the same zeal for it that he does for his sedevacantism and anti-Baptism/anti-Sacrament agenda.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2931
    • Reputation: +736/-774
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #6 on: September 13, 2017, 12:25:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Some people don't know their faith.  And still parade their ignorance around again and again.

    They embarrass themselves.
    I think that shamelessness and embarrassment are mutually exclusive. 
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3152
    • Reputation: +3848/-157
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #7 on: September 13, 2017, 08:58:27 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, I would distinguish.
    .
    That neither the Holy Innocents nor St. Dismas were recipients of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, granted.  They died within the Old Covenant.
    .
    But that neither instance supports it, denied.
    .
    Consider that one of the traditional proofs for purgatory is Maccabees 2, but none of the Maccabees whose souls were prayed for would have gone to purgatory (they would have gone to the Limbus Patrum).  If it were required that the Maccabees actually go to purgatory for them to be evidence of it, this passage would not receive the sort of attention it has from exegesists.
    .
    So, while I don't think we can contend that the Holy Innocents or St. Dismas received Baptism of Desire, I don't know that we can so confidently deny that their cases provide support for it.  Just as we could not contend that the Maccabees went to purgatory, their example still supports the idea in principle.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #8 on: September 13, 2017, 09:22:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, I would distinguish.
    .
    That neither the Holy Innocents nor St. Dismas were recipients of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, granted.  They died within the Old Covenant.
    .
    But that neither instance supports it, denied.
    .
    Consider that one of the traditional proofs for purgatory is Maccabees 2, but none of the Maccabees whose souls were prayed for would have gone to purgatory (they would have gone to the Limbus Patrum).  If it were required that the Maccabees actually go to purgatory for them to be evidence of it, this passage would not receive the sort of attention it has from exegesists.
    .
    So, while I don't think we can contend that the Holy Innocents or St. Dismas received Baptism of Desire, I don't know that we can so confidently deny that their cases provide support for it.  Just as we could not contend that the Maccabees went to purgatory, their example still supports the idea in principle.
    Solid reasoning as usual from you. 
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #9 on: September 13, 2017, 09:36:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Well, I would distinguish.
    .
    That neither the Holy Innocents nor St. Dismas were recipients of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, granted.  They died within the Old Covenant.
    .
    But that neither instance supports it, denied.
    .
    Consider that one of the traditional proofs for purgatory is Maccabees 2, but none of the Maccabees whose souls were prayed for would have gone to purgatory (they would have gone to the Limbus Patrum).  If it were required that the Maccabees actually go to purgatory for them to be evidence of it, this passage would not receive the sort of attention it has from exegesists.
    .
    So, while I don't think we can contend that the Holy Innocents or St. Dismas received Baptism of Desire, I don't know that we can so confidently deny that their cases provide support for it.  Just as we could not contend that the Maccabees went to purgatory, their example still supports the idea in principle.
    Related thereto, I think, for example, the "faith of Abraham" could be a type or model of baptism of desire, even though, to paraphrase you, he didn't receive it.

    The problem I have with BOD as a possibility for justification now without at least an explicit desire for baptism is God, in His divine economy, worked a change in the means of justification under the New Law. Trent says this, I think clearly:



    Quote
    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.


    Since the promulgation of the Gospel, there has been a change. Christ has come, and implicitness is gone. You need the Catholic faith, with requires belief per the Athanasian Creed - in Christ, the Trinity, and Incarnation -at a minimum.  

    My argument, anyway.
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1993
    • Reputation: +855/-590
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #10 on: September 13, 2017, 09:39:20 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, I would distinguish.
    .
    That neither the Holy Innocents nor St. Dismas were recipients of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, granted.  They died within the Old Covenant.

    AES: At least you admit that it's not proof, which is more than your "friend" could do. I hope this means that would disagree with any BODers offering these examples as proof of BOD. Especially the spamming of these particular quotes.
    .
    But that neither instance supports it, denied.
    .
    Consider that one of the traditional proofs for purgatory is Maccabees 2, but none of the Maccabees whose souls were prayed for would have gone to purgatory (they would have gone to the Limbus Patrum).  If it were required that the Maccabees actually go to purgatory for them to be evidence of it, this passage would not receive the sort of attention it has from exegesists.

    AES: From what I can tell, Maccabees is used to prove two things to Protestants. That at least some Jews before Our Lord's advent believed that there was a place besides heaven and hell where souls resided that our prayers would be efficacious for. This would refute their claim that there can't be a Purgatory. Also, it destroys their claim that Catholics are practicing Necromancy by praying for the dead. I don't think many would claim that this is absolute proof of purgatory like those passages in the N.T. like Matthew 12:32, which there is no other concept possible than purgatory.
    .
    So, while I don't think we can contend that the Holy Innocents or St. Dismas received Baptism of Desire, I don't know that we can so confidently deny that their cases provide support for it.  Just as we could not contend that the Maccabees went to purgatory, their example still supports the idea in principle.

    AES: I don't think it offers support at all. If we contend that Baptism did not become obligatory until after the Resurrection of Our Lord, how is it relevant to bring up example of the Old Law? Then one could bring up any martyr in O.T. Scripture for support. Those did not go to heaven.
    There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.----St. Francis de Sales


    Offline tornpage

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 372
    • Reputation: +83/-62
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #11 on: September 13, 2017, 09:41:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Also, per Trent, since the promulgation of the Gospel, the sacraments are necessary. Ladislaus has a good post on this and how BOD could keep the sacraments' necessity. 
    "[L]et us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is 'one God, one faith, one baptism' [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry."

    Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadem

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2931
    • Reputation: +736/-774
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #12 on: September 13, 2017, 09:45:19 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Solid reasoning as usual from you.
    Well, I would distinguish.
    .
    1. ... neither the Holy Innocents nor St. Dismas were recipients of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood...

    2. They died within the Old Covenant.
    .
    3. one of the traditional proofs for purgatory is Maccabees 2
     1. none of the Maccabees whose souls were prayed for would have gone to purgatory (they would have gone to the Limbus Patrum).
     2.  If it were required that the Maccabees actually go to purgatory for them to be evidence of it, this passage would not receive the sort of attention it has from exegesists.


    .I think there is a bit of conflation going on here, namely exactly what is being shown to be either possible or neccessary in priniciple.

    The proofs for purgatory show that there must be some place for them to go, that there would have been some means provided.

    With the Holy Innocents or S. Dismas, why couldn't this just as readily be said to be supporting the sacrament itself? Why does purgatory have to equate to "BoD/B"?

    Why couldn't any old covenant martrydom do likewise?

    I don't think the two are equivalent as given. 

    This is at you torn. This dude doesn't like answering simple questions.
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3152
    • Reputation: +3848/-157
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #13 on: September 13, 2017, 10:04:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • AES,

    It's hardly conclusive proof, but when we're discussing the ordinary magisterium, we aren't looking for a smoking gun, we're just looking for a consensus.  It isn't so much about the passage itself (in Maccabees) as it is about what the Church's approved teachers have taken it to mean.  Scripture is only a remote rule of faith, for understanding of it we look to the Church and her lawfully deputed authors.  So, it's simply added to the rest of the sources affirming the existence of BoD.
    .
    To confuseDZ:
    .
    I am demonstrating that the denial of the Holy Innocents and St. Dismas as a proof of BoD is untenable.  The denial of the proof goes like this:
    .
    -The Holy Innocents and St. Dismas belonged to the Old Covenant
    -Therefore, baptism was not necessary for them
    -Therefore, they could not have received Baptism of Desire, which is a substitute operation whereby the soul is purged of original sin in place of actual water baptism
    -Therefore, as non-recipients of BoD, they do not support BoD
    .
    I can use the same assumption (that one must be a direct example of such and such a thing to be a proof of such and such a thing) to show that Maccabees doesn't support purgatory:
    .
    -The Maccabees belonged to the Old Covenant
    -The fathers in the Old Covenant who were justified only went to the Limbus Patrum
    -Therefore, they would not have gone to purgatory
    -Therefore, the prayers they offered for supplication of their dead do not support purgatory
    .
    But Maccabees is commonly regarded as supporting purgatory by commentators, showing that the commentators do not require one to directly experience what one's experience suggests, foretells, or implies. 
    .
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13437
    • Reputation: +6920/-1615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Holy Innocents not Proof of Baptism of Blood
    « Reply #14 on: September 13, 2017, 10:13:23 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 'LOT' likes to cite St. Alphonsus because he gives the Holy Innocents as examples Baptism of Blood.

    Yes, and here's another example.  St. Alphonsus says that those who are saved by BoD still have Purgatory time left.  But Pope Innocent III said in his famous letter about BoB that such a one would arrive at his heavenly home "without delay" (aka, without Purgatory).

    Also, the grace of initial justification = regeneration, and regeneration = a complete renewal so that there's no remaining sin to expiate (both according to Trent).  Consequently, if there is such a thing as BoD, it would NOT entail any Purgatory (if one died immediately afterwards without committing any other sins).

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16