-
On page 430 of the TAN Books edition, under the discussion of “Imperfect Contrition and the Sacrament of Penance”, Ott states:
If perfect contrition were necessary for valid reception the Sacrament of Penance would cease to be a Sacrament of the dead, as justification would always take place before the actual reception of the Sacrament; the power to forgive sins would lose its proper purpose, since grievous sins would never be remitted in the Sacrament of Penance; absolution would have a mere declarative significance ... the way to the attaining of justification would not be facilitated by the institution of the Sacrament of Penance; on the contrary it would be made more difficult.
The same argument applies to the Sacrament of Baptism: if desire were sufficient to gains the effects of this sacrament, since desire is absolutely necessary to effect it in re, the washing of regeneration and translation into justification would always take place before the actual reception of the Sacrament, and it would be made effectively redundant except in its significance as a declaratory sign, since it would not even be strictly necessary as the gateway to the other sacraments!
If the SSPX were logically consistent, they would only ask: “Do you seek to live according to your conscience? Are you sorry for your sins? You are absolved: here, have a cracker!” That would be the sum of the duties of the Church to preach the a Gospel and administer the Sacraments. Have you heard of Jesus? No? Good! Be sorry for your sins. Try to be a good person! Here, this will help you! St. Paul? Never heard of him.
So much for those in the SSPX who claim that there can be pagans walking about in a state of grace through implicit desire and implicit faith!
-
if desire were sufficient to gains the effects of this sacrament ... it [water baptism] would not even be strictly necessary as the gateway to the other sacraments!
Baptism has two effects: 1) it washes away original sin (and infuses faith, hope and charity into the soul), and 2) it imprints upon the soul an indelible character. The character is necessary to receive the other sacraments - which means the character (not sanctifying grace) is "strictly necessary as the gateway to the other sacraments".
Nothing in the citation you quote from Ott implicitly refutes the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire. Dr. Ott himself explicitly teaches this doctrine on pages 356-358 of the book you quoted. As you will see in the following quotation, Ott, like every other theologian prior to Vatican II, interprets the Council of Trent as teaching baptism of desire.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p-356-357: "2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism: In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)
"a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).
"The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible " without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."
"According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
"The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: "I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. ! Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.
"Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments."
He continues by explaining the Church's teaching concerning the baptism of blood:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p. 357: b) Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis) Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an unbaptised person, that is, the patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature leads to death, by reason of one's confession of the Christian faith, or one's practice of Christian virtue.
"Jesus Himself attests the justifying power of martyrdom. Mt. to, 32: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven." Mt. 10 39 (16, 25): " He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me shall find it." John 11 12, 25: " He that hateth his life in this world keepeth it unto life eternal."
"From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for Baptism. Tertullian calls it "blood Baptism" (lavacrum sanguinis) and ascribes to it the effect of "taking the place of the baptismal bath if it was not received, and restoring that which was lost" (De bapt. I6). According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive "
the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism" (Ep. 73, 22). Cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei XIII 7.
"As, according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism, blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments. St. Augustine says: " It is an affront to a martyr to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers "(Sermo 159 I.) Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character. Cf. S. th. III 66, 11 and 12."
This is the Church's teaching concerning baptism of desire and blood. It can be found expressed in similar terms in any pre-Vatican II theological manual and in the old catechisms. Those who depart from Tradition by rejecting BOD are no better than Modernists.
-
How about the following fromPope Pius xll
“An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. “
-
How about the following fromPope Pius xll
“An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. “
Or this one.
Pius XII: “In the case of other, more necessary sacraments, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forego even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water on his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession.”
-
And let us not forget the Catechism of Pius X, the Baltimore Catechism and the old Douay Catechism:
Catechism of Pius X:
Question: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
The Baltimore Catechism:
Question: How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Answer: Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or of desire. (…)
Question: How does an unbaptized person receive baptism of desire?
Answer: An unbaptized person receives baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.
(a) Baptism of desire takes away all sin, original and actual, and the eternal punishment due to sin. It does not, however, imprint a character on the soul nor does it necessarily take away all temporal punishment due to actual sin.
(b) In the baptism of desire, there need not always be an explicit desire to receive baptism of water
The Douay Catechism (1649):
Question: Can a man be saved without baptism?
Answer: 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.
-
Nothing in the citation you quote from Ott implicitly refutes the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire.
There is no doctrine of the Church regarding Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire is nothing more than a piece of speculative theology that the Church has tolerated for some period of time.
-
The Douay Catechism (1649):
Question: Can a man be saved without baptism?
Answer: 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.
Theologically fault. Holy Innocents died before the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted and therefore could not have received Baptism either in voto or in re.
-
Catechism of Pius X:
Question: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Self-contradictory. Prior to this passage, the Catechism states that the SACRAMENT if ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation.
-
Pius XII: “In the case of other, more necessary sacraments, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forego even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water on his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession.”
That was his opinion, and it is wrong ... just like his opinion on NFP, evolution, ecuмenical gatherings, and liturgical experimentation.
-
That was his opinion, and it is wrong ...
"Ladislaus locuta est causa finita est."
Can you name any theologian from the 19th or 20th century who rejects BOD?
-
"Ladislaus locuta est causa finita est."
Can you name any theologian from the 19th or 20th century who rejects BOD?
Can you name a theologian in the 19th and 20th century that rejects the theory of salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that is, salvation without desire to be baptized, without a desire to be a Catholic, without belief in Christ or the Holy Trinity?
As a matter of fact, 99% of those that defend baptism of desire, reject the very idea of desire being necessary for salvation, nor belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity.
-
"Ladislaus locuta est causa finita est."
Can you name any theologian from the 19th or 20th century who rejects BOD?
Father Leonard Feeney.
Name a theologian today who rejects the errors of Vatican II.
-
Baptism has two effects: 1) it washes away original sin (and infuses faith, hope and charity into the soul), and 2) it imprints upon the soul an indelible character. The character is necessary to receive the other sacraments - which means the character (not sanctifying grace) is "strictly necessary as the gateway to the other sacraments".
Nothing in the citation you quote from Ott implicitly refutes the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire. Dr. Ott himself explicitly teaches this doctrine on pages 356-358 of the book you quoted. As you will see in the following quotation, Ott, like every other theologian prior to Vatican II, interprets the Council of Trent as teaching baptism of desire.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p-356-357: "2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism: In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)
"a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).
"The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible " without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."
"According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This, day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
"The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: "I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. ! Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.
"Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments."
He continues by explaining the Church's teaching concerning the baptism of blood:
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Van Ott, p. 357: b) Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis) Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an unbaptised person, that is, the patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature leads to death, by reason of one's confession of the Christian faith, or one's practice of Christian virtue.
"Jesus Himself attests the justifying power of martyrdom. Mt. to, 32: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven." Mt. 10 39 (16, 25): " He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me shall find it." John 11 12, 25: " He that hateth his life in this world keepeth it unto life eternal."
"From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for Baptism. Tertullian calls it "blood Baptism" (lavacrum sanguinis) and ascribes to it the effect of "taking the place of the baptismal bath if it was not received, and restoring that which was lost" (De bapt. I6). According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive "
the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism" (Ep. 73, 22). Cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei XIII 7.
"As, according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism, blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments. St. Augustine says: " It is an affront to a martyr to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers "(Sermo 159 I.) Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character. Cf. S. th. III 66, 11 and 12."
This is the Church's teaching concerning baptism of desire and blood. It can be found expressed in similar terms in any pre-Vatican II theological manual and in the old catechisms. Those who depart from Tradition by rejecting BOD are no better than Modernists.
The Church's teaching on baptism is not dependent on fallible theologians or saints, but on the infallible magisterium, the popes, and without doubt, the Council of Trent.
"If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."
-
Theologically fault. Holy Innocents died before the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted and therefore could not have received Baptism either in voto or in re.
.
The same applies to the "good thief" crucified by Our Lord. I've heard SSPX defenders claim that Our Lord gave him the assurance of salvation and that "therefore" the good thief received baptism of desire. But the Sacrament of Baptism had not been instituted yet, and consequently it was irrelevant for that man dying on Good Friday. Anyone else who died before Baptism was instituted also had no need for Baptism because the Sacrament didn't exist yet.
.
The first mention of it in Scripture was when Our Lord was ascending into heaven and gave the Apostolic Commission to his apostles, to go forth and preach everything I have commanded you; those who are baptized and believe will be saved, those who believe not will be condemned. All references to the Apostles baptizing people come after that time.
.
-
.
Quote from: RomanTheo on Today at 01:33:37 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ludwig-ott-implicitly-refutes-baptism-of-desire/msg604969/#msg604969)
"Ladislaus locuta est causa finita est."
Can you name any theologian from the 19th or 20th century who rejects BOD?
Father Leonard Feeney.
Name a theologian today who rejects the errors of Vatican II.
.
To be fair, Fr. Feeney did not wage a crusade rejecting BoD or BoB. Those were not his concern.
His concern was defending extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Period.
As for BoD and BoB, his position was that since we cannot know the state of a soul of a dying person because we cannot know his interior disposition (only God can discern the thought of our hearts), what becomes of such souls who have not been baptized is left to the providence of God. It's not OUR DECISION what happens. It's God's decision.
.
BoB and BoD advocates like "RomanTheo" above are wont to rip that prerogative of God away from Him and make it their own.
.
BoB and/or BoD never have been prominent issues for the St. Benedict Center, and they never will be.
.
Those who would make it seem so are succuмbing to a deception of the enemy who wants to deceive you.
.
As for your question, "Name a theologian today who rejects the errors of Vatican II" -- excellent!
.
They had to GET RID of Fr. Feeney in order to HOLD Vat.II. If he had not been squelched long in advance (11 years, actually) they would have been utterly UNABLE to hold that evil council, for his one voice would have been like Athanasius against the Arians. And the Modernists were terrified of that prospect.
.
-
Can you name a theologian in the 19th and 20th century that rejects the theory of salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that is, salvation without desire to be baptized, without a desire to be a Catholic, without belief in Christ or the Holy Trinity?
As a matter of fact, 99% of those that defend baptism of desire, reject the very idea of desire being necessary for salvation, nor belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity.
.
While I concur with the gist of your post, I take issue with the "99%" figure.
It appears arbitrary, and not "a matter of fact."
I suspect it's exaggerated, and that approximately 87.8125%, +/-0.003%, is closer to the reality. ;D
.
-
Nobody cares about BOD except those who can't deal with the thrice infallible dogma that only validly baptized Roman Catholics go to heaven. BOD was not an issue for anyone before the Americanists made it so, in the XIX century.
Chances are the hypothetical catechumen does not even exist in reality anyway.
And of course, these people are not talking about a real, pious catechumen who dies on his way of getting water baptized....
-
Father Leonard Feeney.
Name a theologian today who rejects the errors of Vatican II.
.
To be fair, Fr. Feeney did not wage a crusade rejecting BoD or BoB. Those were not his concern.
His concern was defending extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Period.
As for BoD and BoB, his position was that since we cannot know the state of a soul of a dying person because we cannot know his interior disposition (only God can discern the thought of our hearts), what becomes of such souls who have not been baptized is left to the providence of God. It's not OUR DECISION what happens. It's God's decision.
.
BoB and BoD advocates like "RomanTheo" above are wont to rip that prerogative of God away from Him and make it their own.
.
BoB and/or BoD never have been prominent issues for the St. Benedict Center, and they never will be.
.
Those who would make it seem so are succuмbing to a deception of the enemy who wants to deceive you.
.
As for your question, "Name a theologian today who rejects the errors of Vatican II" -- excellent!
.
They had to GET RID of Fr. Feeney in order to HOLD Vat.II. If he had not been squelched long in advance (11 years, actually) they would have been utterly UNABLE to hold that evil council, for his one voice would have been like Athanasius against the Arians. And the Modernists were terrified of that prospect.
.
This is a very good post, Neil.
-
This is a very good post, Neil.
.
Thank you.
.
I'm currently reading The Loyolas and the Cabots by Sister Catherine. You can't make this stuff up!
-
Nobody cares about BOD except those who can't deal with the thrice infallible dogma that only validly baptized Roman Catholics go to heaven. BOD was not an issue for anyone before the Americanists made it so, in the XIX century.
.
[And flat-earthism wasn't an issue for anyone before Eric Dubay, the atheist, started making YouTube videos.]
Chances are the hypothetical catechumen does not even exist in reality anyway.
And of course, these people are not talking about a real, pious catechumen who dies on his way of getting water baptized....
.
Brother Francis used to say that progressivists like to make the exception into the rule. They say, about the image of a tree there before everyone, "I see a tree." Then pushing their finger in to the side of their eyeball, they say, "Now I see two trees."
.
You see, their reality is in the mind.
But truth is defined as the conformity of the mind to reality.
So progressivists are opposed to believing the truth. A lot like flat-earthers, actually!
.
Regarding BoD, the progressivist likes to jump topic and worry about the "noble indigenous native on a desert island" far away, and whether it's fair that he wouldn't be given Baptism or instruction in the Faith, why, he's most likely to live and die like his ancestors without ever having heard the name of Jesus pronounced. Then Brother Francis would say, Why would he be selectively concerned about the noble native in a distant land when we can't get the truth into the minds of our next-door neighbor walking on the Boston Common?
.
-
Chances are the hypothetical catechumen does not even exist in reality anyway.
Agreed. Even if such a thing were a hypothetical possibility, there's no proof that anyone has ever been saved in this manner. Nor is it necessary, since God is never prevented by "impossibility" from bringing the Sacrament to any of His elect. We have numerous examples of God working miracles to do just that, raising the dead back to life so they could be baptized, or miraculously providing water. If someone were to be saved by BoD and not able to receive the Sacrament, we would have to further hypothesize and speculate about why God would will that they be saved in this manner ... when He could just as easily have provided the Sacrament. Everything about BoD revolves around speculation as to what would or would not be "fair" for God to do ... which does nothing more than open up a "vortex of confusion", as St. Augustine called it, once he had come to his senses and rejected his earlier youthful speculation regarding BoD. He rejected it after many years of grappling with the Pelagians, and realizing that BoD led inexorably to Pelagianism.
If God has willed to save someone this way, then glory to God. But, otherwise, speculation about this leads to nothing good. It undermines belief in the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation, about the nature of the Church, ultimately reducing salvation and supernatural faith to a matter of "sincerity" and "good will" ... and leads us right up to Vatican II.
-
To be fair, Fr. Feeney did not wage a crusade rejecting BoD or BoB. Those were not his concern.
His concern was defending extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Period.
Precisely. And I too consider BoD proper to be a matter of secondary importance. I have no serious fight, except a personal disagreement, with someone who holds to a Thomistic or Bellarminist BoD ... i.e., so long as they don't bring all the usual heretical baggage with it. I have praised here on CI the poster Arvinger for his solid ecclesiology, despite his personal belief in BoD. No, the battle is against the completely false Protestant-Pelagian ecclesiology which is at the root of Vatican II. Vatican II transformed the dogma that there is no salvation outside the "Church of the faithful" to no salvation outside the "Church of the sincere". Pelagius would have been very pleased.
-
Nothing in the citation you quote from Ott implicitly refutes the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire.
It does, but you’re apparently unable to even follow a logical argument, which is why you have not addressed it but focused upon an afterthought.
As far as that afterthought goes, you’re separating the translation out of original sin and the mark of a Christian in a manner that is untenable. How can one be “in the Church”, as one would have to be for BOD to be efficacious to salvation (Cantate Domino) without bearing the “mark of a Christian”?
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.
This is precisely the process supposedly taking place in BOD that is made thereby redundant in actual Baptism (precisely the point you have chosen to ignore). But what does it say? It mentions not only the translation into the state of justification, but that of ADOPTION as SONS of God through CHRIST. Now, are you going to maintain that the seal with the indelible mark of a Christian is not something that is essentially part of this very adoption?
(Baptism has six effects, by the way: remission of sin, remission of punishment due to sin, grace of regeneration, infused virtues and incorporation with Christ, mark of a Christian, and opening of the doors of Heaven. So which ones of these, in light of Trent’s statement supposedly relating to what can also be effected by BOD, do you arbitrarily exclude from BOD to serve your argument ad hoc? How about the opening of the gates of Heaven? No, any but that one, right?)
-
The respondent appears not to understand the use of the word “implicitly” here. It means that the argument against perfect contrition being necessary to effect the Sacrament of Penance implies the very same conclusion I regard to BOD by simply adding to it the unusual premises of BOD; it does not mean that Ott was implying that BOD is false. Please, if you can’t understand such a basic concept, namely that the logical structure of a valid argument along with certain premises imply things about other domains of discourse, don’t waste my time.
-
Happenby: The Church's teaching on baptism is not dependent on fallible theologians or saints, but on the infallible magisterium, the popes, and without doubt, the Council of Trent. "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."
Reply: All the canon you quoted means is that the sacrament of baptism requires real water, and that the “water” spoken of by Our Lord cannot be understood metaphorically.
The separate question of whether a person can obtain the salvific effects of baptism – i.e., translation into the state of justification by the infusion of sanctifying grace – without receiving the sacrament in re, is treated in another place.
When discussing the sacraments in general, the same Holy Council teaches:
CANON IV.”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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
It goes on to explain that the salvific effects of the Eucharist, Penance, and Baptism can be obtained by desire. Concerning baptism, we read:
"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, as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
The above teaching has always been understood as meaning the desire for baptism can suffice for salvation, provided that the person makes a supernatural act of faith combined with a perfect act of charity. Two quotations will suffice, both of which are from doctors of the Church:
Bellarmine: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water, not out of contempt, but out of necessity… For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities... … Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire.
St. Alphonsus: “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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. … 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.”
Just as a baptized person in mortal sin can obtain the salvific effects of Penance (infusion of grace and remission of sin) by means of an act of perfect contrition, so too can one obtain the salvific effects of baptism by a perfect of contrition combined with supernatural faith.
In condemning the errors of Fr. Feeney, the Holy Office wrote:
“In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration [i.e. baptism] and in reference to the sacrament of penance.”
Here we have the Magisterium itself interpreting the above citation from Trent as teaching that the salvific effects of baptism can be obtain by “desire and longing”. This is not merely the teaching of a theologian, or even of a doctor of the Church, but of the Magisterium.
Many more quotations could be provided, but these should suffice for any Catholic of good will.
-
"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." [Council of Trent]
This is precisely the process supposedly taking place in BOD that is made thereby redundant in actual Baptism (precisely the point you have chosen to ignore). But what does it say? It mentions not only the translation into the state of justification, but that of ADOPTION as SONS of God through CHRIST. Now, are you going to maintain that the seal with the indelible mark of a Christian is not something that is essentially part of this very adoption?
Indeed I am. The baptismal character has nothing to do with divine adoption. The character is a power of the soul that pertains to the worship of God on earth and to receiving Christ in the Eucharist. It is sanctifying grace, which is a created participation in divine life, that justifies man, makes him an adopted child of God, and an heir of heaven. Sanctifying grace is what justifies man and what make him a child of God.
The only question that was debated prior to Trent was whether the formal cause of divine adoption is sanctifying grace (a created participation in divine life), or the indwelling Holy Ghost (the uncreated life of God). Trent settled the question by teaching that it is grace that makes a man an adopted child of God. The article on this subject in the Catholic Encyclopedia is quite good. Here is an excerpt:
Catholic Encyclopedia: “What is the essential factor or formal cause of our supernatural adoption? This question was never seriously mooted previous to the scholastic period. The solutions it then received were to a great extent influenced by the then current theories on grace. Peter the Lombard, who identifies grace and charity with the Holy Ghost, was naturally brought to explain our adoption by the sole presence of the Spirit in the soul of the just, to the exclusion of any created and inherent God-given entity. The Nominalists and Scotus, though reluctantly admitting a created entity, nevertheless failed to see in it a valid factor of our divine adoption, and consequently had recourse to a divine positive enactment decreeing and receiving us as children of God and heirs of the Kingdom. Apart from these, a vast majority of the Schoolmen with Alexander Hales, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, and preeminently St. Thomas, pointed to habitual grace (an expression coined by Alexander) as the essential factor of our adopted sonship. For them the same inherent quality which gives new life and birth to the soul gives it also a new filiation. Says the Angel of the Schools (III:9:23, ad 3am), "The creature is assimilated to the Word of God in His Unity with the Father; and this is done by grace and charity. . . . Such a likeness perfects the idea of adoption, for to the like is due the same eternal heritage." This last view received the seal of the Council of Trent (sess. VI, c. vii, can. 11). The Council first identifies justification with adoption: "To become just and to be heir according to the hope of life everlasting" is one and the same thing. It then proceeds to give the real essence of justification. "Its sole formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just.” … From what has been said, it is manifest that our supernatural adoption is an immediate and necessary property of sanctifying grace. The primal concept of sanctifying grace is a new God-given and Godlike life superadded to our natural life. By that very life we are born to God even as the child to its parent, and thus we acquire a new filiation. This filiation is called adoption …”
I challenge you to cite any authority who teaches that the baptismal character is necessary for divine adoption, or for salvation. And the inventor of the novelty you profess (Fr. Feeney) doesn't count.
-
Happenby: The Church's teaching on baptism is not dependent on fallible theologians or saints, but on the infallible magisterium, the popes, and without doubt, the Council of Trent. "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema."
Reply: All the canon you quoted means is that the sacrament of baptism requires real water, and that the “water” spoken of by Our Lord cannot be understood metaphorically.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Canon V: You have to have baptism for salvation.
Canon II. You have to have water for baptism.
The definition of metaphor: A metaphor states that one thing is another thing. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/
Since the canon rejects metaphors, saying that bod will save makes the person saying it, anathema.
Bod, by definition, is not baptism, and it cannot save. These canons are iron clad against bod.
The separate question of whether a person can obtain the salvific effects of baptism – i.e., translation into the state of justification by the infusion of sanctifying grace – without receiving the sacrament in re, is treated in another place.
When discussing the sacraments in general, the same Holy Council teaches:
CANON IV.”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 indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
If anyone says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation (not all are necessary, but at least one is); Or says that without the sacraments, and, without the desire for the sacraments, men obtain through faith alone the grace of justification, let him be anathema. Both desire for the sacraments, and the sacraments themselves, are necessary for justification. Anathema to anyone saying otherwise.
It goes on to explain that the salvific effects of the Eucharist, Penance, and Baptism can be obtained by desire. Concerning baptism, we read:
"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, as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
The "or" in Trent includes "laver of regeneration" and it includes "desire". The sacrament "laver of regeneration" is necessary, and it cannot be had without "desire for it". If one concludes that the "or" means "either/or" then that means one can have justification with laver of regeneration, by desire only, but then that means one can get justification with the "laver of regeneration", but without desire for the sacrament. And we all know that is false. Further, if you can have justification with laver of regeneration, but without desire, and you can have justification with desire but without laver of regeneration, then we can have justification without either, "desire" or "laver of regeneration", courtesy of the "or". Patently false.
The "or" in Trent's quoted statements includes the necessity of "desire" and the necessity of the "laver of regeneration" because it says this: you cannot have justification without...
Without what? You cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof. You need both. If we read it the way bod'ers suggest, acting as though the "or" is not inclusive in a sentence written in the negative sense, using the word "without" then we need neither, making the sentence renders both laver of regeneration and desire as unnecessary for justification.
The above teaching has always been understood as meaning the desire for baptism can suffice for salvation, provided that the person makes a supernatural act of faith combined with a perfect act of charity. Two quotations will suffice, both of which are from doctors of the Church:
Bellarmine: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water, not out of contempt, but out of necessity… For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities... … Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire.
St. Alphonsus: “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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. … 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.”
Just as a baptized person in mortal sin can obtain the salvific effects of Penance (infusion of grace and remission of sin) by means of an act of perfect contrition, so too can one obtain the salvific effects of baptism by a perfect of contrition combined with supernatural faith.
In condemning the errors of Fr. Feeney, the Holy Office wrote:
“In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration [i.e. baptism] and in reference to the sacrament of penance.”
Here we have the Magisterium itself interpreting the above citation from Trent as teaching that the salvific effects of baptism can be obtain by “desire and longing”. This is not merely the teaching of a theologian, or even of a doctor of the Church, but of the Magisterium.
Many more quotations could be provided, but these should suffice for any Catholic of good will.
The canons of the Church make it clear that water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. The saints cannot contradict these truths no matter how hopeful their sentiments.
-
The baptismal character has nothing to do with divine adoption.
FALSE!!!
What this character does is to imprint the likeness of Our Lord, the Son of God, onto our souls (similar to how Holy Orders works, but to a lesser degree). When we bear this mark, God the Father recognizes us as His sons. Without being His sons in this manner, we cannot enter into the inner life of the Holy Trinity and see God as He is in the beatific vision.
This BoDer hogwash about how the character is nothing but some non-repeatability marker for the Sacrament or else some badge of honor which some in heaven have but others do not, renders the mark almost meaningless.
-
Catholic Encyclopedia: “What is the essential factor or formal cause of our supernatural adoption? This question was never seriously mooted previous to the scholastic period. The solutions it then received were to a great extent influenced by the then current theories on grace. Peter the Lombard, who identifies grace and charity with the Holy Ghost, was naturally brought to explain our adoption by the sole presence of the Spirit in the soul of the just, to the exclusion of any created and inherent God-given entity. The Nominalists and Scotus, though reluctantly admitting a created entity, nevertheless failed to see in it a valid factor of our divine adoption, and consequently had recourse to a divine positive enactment decreeing and receiving us as children of God and heirs of the Kingdom. Apart from these, a vast majority of the Schoolmen with Alexander Hales, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, and preeminently St. Thomas, pointed to habitual grace (an expression coined by Alexander) as the essential factor of our adopted sonship. For them the same inherent quality which gives new life and birth to the soul gives it also a new filiation. Says the Angel of the Schools (III:9:23, ad 3am), "The creature is assimilated to the Word of God in His Unity with the Father; and this is done by grace and charity. . . . Such a likeness perfects the idea of adoption, for to the like is due the same eternal heritage." This last view received the seal of the Council of Trent (sess. VI, c. vii, can. 11). The Council first identifies justification with adoption: "To become just and to be heir according to the hope of life everlasting" is one and the same thing. It then proceeds to give the real essence of justification. "Its sole formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just.” … From what has been said, it is manifest that our supernatural adoption is an immediate and necessary property of sanctifying grace. The primal concept of sanctifying grace is a new God-given and Godlike life superadded to our natural life. By that very life we are born to God even as the child to its parent, and thus we acquire a new filiation. This filiation is called adoption …”
Distinguo. Yes, in actu it's sanctifying grace that constitutes the essence of the adoption, but it is the character which makes it a possibility in the first place, in potentia. But there can be no act without the potency to said act in the first place.
So, then, one who has the potency but not the act, i.e. the character but not sanctifying grace, is excluded from this spirit of adoption and from the beatific vision and life of the Holy Trinity.
-
Happenby: “The canons of the Church make it clear that water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. The saints cannot contradict these truths no matter how hopeful their sentiments.”
RomanTheo: What makes more sense, that two doctors of the Church and the Holy Office misunderstood Trent’s teaching concerning baptism, or that it is you who have misunderstand the canons? Every pre-Vatican II manual explains the Church’s teaching concerning baptism in similar terms, and they all teach baptism of desire and blood – not as “a piece of speculative theology that the Church has tolerated for some period of time,” as Ladislas claimed, but rather as a doctrine qualified as sententia proximate fide, as Dr. Ott taught in the earlier citation.
Rejection of a doctrine qualified as sententia proximate fide is not merely rash, but rather a mortal sin indirectly against the faith, as Fr. Cartechini explains in his masterful work On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them.
Happenby: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
RomanTheo: No one denies that baptism is necessary for salvation. If you study the teaching of the Church you will find that baptism is necessary with the two-fold necessity of means (necessitas medii), and necessity of precept (necessitas prcecepti).
Necessity of precept “signifies the type of necessity which arises exclusively from a moral obligation. It conduces to salvation not so much by a positive causal influx as the removal of obstacles to salvation. If the precept is not observed, serious sin is committed; and sin itself is an obstacle to salvation.” This precept is referred to as a relative necessity, for one is not guilty of sin (the “obstacle to salvation”), unless they are guilty of neglecting to receive baptism.
Concerning the necessity of means (necessitas medii), Wilhelm and Scannell explain it as follows in their celebrated work A Manual of Catholic Theology (1901). Be sure to notice what Conciliar decree they reference concerning baptism of desire:
“We have, in the first volume, distinguished two kinds of necessity: necessity of means (necessitas medii), and necessity of precept (necessitas prcecepti).
“(a) Baptism is a necessary means of salvation; that is to say, without baptism a person cannot be saved, even though the omission is due to no fault on any one's part. Those who are capable of receiving God's commands (that is, all grown-up persons) are bound to seek baptism, and if they neglect to do so, they commit a grievous sin.
“(b) The apparent harshness of this doctrine is mitigated when we bear in mind a further distinction recognized by the Council of Trent (sess. vi., De Justif., cap. iv.; sess. vii., De Sacr., can. 4), and thus explained by St. Thomas: "The sacrament of baptism may be wanting to a person in two ways: first, in fact and in desire (re et voto) as in the case of those who are not baptized and refuse to be baptized, which is manifestly a contempt of the sacrament, and therefore those who in this way are without baptism cannot be saved, seeing that they are neither sacramentally nor mentally (in spirit) incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone is salvation. Secondly, the sacrament may be wanting in fact but not in desire, as when a person wishes to be baptized, but is stricken by death before he can receive baptism, and such a one can, without actual baptism, be saved on account of the desire of baptism proceeding from faith working by love, by means of which God, Whose power is not restricted to visible sacraments, internally (interius) sanctifies him. Hence, Ambrose saith of Valentinian, who died while only a catechumen: ‘I have lost him whom I was about to regenerate; but he has not lost the grace which he asked for'." (ST. q. 68, a. 2).
“This "baptism of desire" (flaminis) as opposed to actual baptism (baptismus fluminis), is treated of at great length by St. Augustine. "I find," he says (De Bapt., iv. 22), "that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply the defect of baptism (id quod ex baptismo deeraf), but even faith and conversion of heart, if there be no time for celebrating the sacrament (mysteriuni) of baptism.
To sum up, baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. The former is a relative necessity. The latter is an absolute necessity - but only as to its salvific effects, which can be had by receiving the water of baptism in fact or in desire.
Happenby: Canon II. You have to have water for baptism.
The definition of metaphor: A metaphor states that one thing is another thing. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/
Since the canon rejects metaphors, saying that bod will save makes the person saying it, anathema. Bod, by definition, is not baptism, and it cannot save. These canons are iron clad against bod.
RomanTheo: What the canon rejects is that the word “water” (in John 3:3) be understood in a metaphorical sense, which is what the heretics of the day were guilty of doing. The canon has nothing to do with the doctrine of baptism of desire, which is a desire to receive the water of baptism.
Happenby: "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, as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Council of Trent)
The "or" in Trent includes "laver of regeneration" and it includes "desire". The sacrament "laver of regeneration" is necessary, and it cannot be had without "desire for it". If one concludes that the "or" means "either/or" then that means one can have justification with laver of regeneration, by desire only, but then that means one can get justification with the "laver of regeneration", but without desire for the sacrament. And we all know that is false.
RomanTheo: On the contrary, we all know it is true. A person most certainly can be justified by the “laver of regeneration” without having the desire for the sacrament. This happens every single time an infant is baptized. If the laver of regeneration AND desire were absolutely necessary, infant baptism would be null and void.
Happenby: Further, if you can have justification with laver of regeneration, but without desire, and you can have justification with desire but without laver of regeneration, then we can have justification without either, "desire" or "laver of regeneration", courtesy of the "or". Patently false.
RomanTheo: Your leap from the conclusion that if only one of the two is necessary, it means neither are necessary, is illogical and absurd. “Or” means one of the two. It doesn’t mean neither of the two.
Happenby: The "or" in Trent's quoted statements includes the necessity of "desire" and the necessity of the "laver of regeneration" because it says this: you cannot have justification without...” Without what? You cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof. You need both.”
RomanTheo: Again, if this were true it would mean infant baptisms are invalid, since infants receive the laver without desire.
Now, since the Church’s universal disciplines are infallible, and since the universal practice of the Church for two thousand years has been to baptize infants, it proves that your interpretation of Trent – which is contrary to that of the Magisterium (quoted earlier) and every single theologian without exception since the time of the Council – is dead wrong.
-
Distinguo. Yes, in actu it's sanctifying grace that constitutes the essence of the adoption, but it is the character which makes it a possibility in the first place, in potentia. But there can be no act without the potency to said act in the first place.
So, then, one who has the potency but not the act, i.e. the character but not sanctifying grace, is excluded from this spirit of adoption and from the beatific vision and life of the Holy Trinity.
Incorrect. The character is indeed a potentia, but it is not a potentia for the reception of sanctifying grace, but rather for reception of the Eucharist. Technically speaking, the character is, as Zubizaretta explains in Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica, “a spiritual potency, not complete and principal, but rather incomplete and ministerial or instrumental, and is reduced to the second species of a quality.”
Commenting on Aquinas' teaching on the baptismal character, Monsignor Fenton wrote: “St. Thomas held that ‘the sacraments of the new law imprint a character insofar as through them men are commissioned (deputantur) to the worship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion.’ It is for this reason that the character is designated as a quality of the second species, a potentia, as distinguished from a habitus...”. He goes on to explain that the baptismal character is a passive potency that enables one to receive the Eucharist, whereas the sacerdotal character is an active potency that enables one to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Monsignor Fenton: “[T]he sacramental character, which commissions a man for the worship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion, is definitely and primarily concerned with the Eucharist. … According to St. Thomas, the baptismal character differs from that imparted through the Sacrament of Holy Ordrs as passive potency differs from an active one.’ The priestly character enables a man to confect the Eucharist: the baptismal character makes a person capable of receiving it.”
The potentia of the baptismal character is ordered to the reception of the Eucharist, not to the reception of sanctifying grace. Even Fr. Feeney admitted this since he held that a soul could obtain the state of justification without the baptismal character. Where he erred is maintaining that one who died in the state of grace could not enter heaven without the character. His error was not realizing that the character is ordered to Eucharistic worship on earth, not the divine worship or possession of the beatific vision in heaven. The latter requires not the potencia of the baptismal character, but rather the habit of both sanctifying grace and the lumen gloria.
-
Happenby: “The canons of the Church make it clear that water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. The saints cannot contradict these truths no matter how hopeful their sentiments.”
Please. The saints are not infallible. Certainly not when they contradict Church teaching.
RomanTheo: What makes more sense, that two doctors of the Church and the Holy Office misunderstood Trent’s teaching concerning baptism, or that it is you who have misunderstand the canons? Every pre-Vatican II manual explains the Church’s teaching concerning baptism in similar terms, and they all teach baptism of desire and blood – not as “a piece of speculative theology that the Church has tolerated for some period of time,” as Ladislas claimed, but rather as a doctrine qualified as sententia proximate fide, as Dr. Ott taught in the earlier citation.
If it was only me that misunderstood, that would be no problem. I would be wrong. But the fact is, Trent's canons are clear and it contradicts the saints on this matter. But that isn't a disaster, its a lesson. The Council prevails, and the saints and theologians go home.
Rejection of a doctrine qualified as sententia proximate fide is not merely rash, but rather a mortal sin indirectly against the faith, as Fr. Cartechini explains in his masterful work On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them.
Agreed. However, interpreting Trent to include bod when it says otherwise amounts to anathema as the canons decleare. If bod is true, no harm done because baptism is necessary. So, no one will go to hell for defending the necessity of baptism.
Happenby: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
RomanTheo: No one denies that baptism is necessary for salvation. If you study the teaching of the Church you will find that baptism is necessary with the two-fold necessity of means (necessitas medii), and necessity of precept (necessitas prcecepti).
Nonsense. This is rhetoric, obfuscation, semantics. Baptism is necessary and the canons are quite emphatic. What harm is there in not believing in bod in reality? It does me, as a Catholic, zero good to believe it. It affects no one if I don't believe it. However, if it doesn't exist, it prevents some people from going to the lengths it takes to get people baptism since it comforts people in false hope.
Necessity of precept “signifies the type of necessity which arises exclusively from a moral obligation. It conduces to salvation not so much by a positive causal influx as the removal of obstacles to salvation. If the precept is not observed, serious sin is committed; and sin itself is an obstacle to salvation.” This precept is referred to as a relative necessity, for one is not guilty of sin (the “obstacle to salvation”), unless they are guilty of neglecting to receive baptism.
Concerning the necessity of means (necessitas medii), Wilhelm and Scannell explain it as follows in their celebrated work A Manual of Catholic Theology (1901). Be sure to notice what Conciliar decree they reference concerning baptism of desire:
“We have, in the first volume, distinguished two kinds of necessity: necessity of means (necessitas medii), and necessity of precept (necessitas prcecepti).
“(a) Baptism is a necessary means of salvation; that is to say, without baptism a person cannot be saved, even though the omission is due to no fault on any one's part. Those who are capable of receiving God's commands (that is, all grown-up persons) are bound to seek baptism, and if they neglect to do so, they commit a grievous sin.
“(b) The apparent harshness of this doctrine is mitigated when we bear in mind a further distinction recognized by the Council of Trent (sess. vi., De Justif., cap. iv.; sess. vii., De Sacr., can. 4), and thus explained by St. Thomas: "The sacrament of baptism may be wanting to a person in two ways: first, in fact and in desire (re et voto) as in the case of those who are not baptized and refuse to be baptized, which is manifestly a contempt of the sacrament, and therefore those who in this way are without baptism cannot be saved, seeing that they are neither sacramentally nor mentally (in spirit) incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone is salvation. Secondly, the sacrament may be wanting in fact but not in desire, as when a person wishes to be baptized, but is stricken by death before he can receive baptism, and such a one can, without actual baptism, be saved on account of the desire of baptism proceeding from faith working by love, by means of which God, Whose power is not restricted to visible sacraments, internally (interius) sanctifies him. Hence, Ambrose saith of Valentinian, who died while only a catechumen: ‘I have lost him whom I was about to regenerate; but he has not lost the grace which he asked for'." (ST. q. 68, a. 2).
“This "baptism of desire" (flaminis) as opposed to actual baptism (baptismus fluminis), is treated of at great length by St. Augustine. "I find," he says (De Bapt., iv. 22), "that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply the defect of baptism (id quod ex baptismo deeraf), but even faith and conversion of heart, if there be no time for celebrating the sacrament (mysteriuni) of baptism.
In re, in voto, by votum, by desire alone, by faith alone, necessity of means, necessity of precept, pius saint stories, blah blah blah ...it's all a bunch of fluminis flaminis. Baptism of desire IS NOT baptism. By definition, bod is no baptism at all. You wouldn't want to place your faith in such a thing if you were the candidate. Men need baptism for salvation. End it there. God does the rest.
To sum up, baptism is necessary for salvation by a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. The former is a relative necessity. The latter is an absolute necessity - but only as to its salvific effects, which can be had by receiving the water of baptism in fact or in desire.
Happenby: Canon II. You have to have water for baptism.
The definition of metaphor: A metaphor states that one thing is another thing. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/
Since the canon rejects metaphors, saying that bod will save makes the person saying it, anathema. Bod, by definition, is not baptism, and it cannot save. These canons are iron clad against bod.
RomanTheo: What the canon rejects is that the word “water” (in John 3:3) be understood in a metaphorical sense, which is what the heretics of the day were guilty of doing. The canon has nothing to do with the doctrine of baptism of desire, which is a desire to receive the water of baptism.
Happenby: "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, as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Council of Trent)
Changing the words to say "at least" is an addition that falsifies the entire premise of the necessity for baptism.
The "or" in Trent includes "laver of regeneration" and it includes "desire". The sacrament "laver of regeneration" is necessary, and it cannot be had without "desire for it". If one concludes that the "or" means "either/or" then that means one can have justification with laver of regeneration, by desire only, but then that means one can get justification with the "laver of regeneration", but without desire for the sacrament. And we all know that is false.
RomanTheo: On the contrary, we all know it is true. A person most certainly can be justified by the “laver of regeneration” without having the desire for the sacrament. This happens every single time an infant is baptized. If the laver of regeneration AND desire were absolutely necessary, infant baptism would be null and void.
Nope. In fact, its necessary for the person representing the child to desire the sacrament on behalf of the child.
Happenby: Further, if you can have justification with laver of regeneration, but without desire, and you can have justification with desire but without laver of regeneration, then we can have justification without either, "desire" or "laver of regeneration", courtesy of the "or". Patently false.
RomanTheo: Your leap from the conclusion that if only one of the two is necessary, it means neither are necessary, is illogical and absurd. “Or” means one of the two. It doesn’t mean neither of the two.
That's what happens when you suggest the "or" means either/or. If laver is necessary, but not desire, and desire is necessary but not laver, then either one is not necessary. If either is not necessary, neither is necessary. This takes a little thought, but its absolutely true.
Happenby: The "or" in Trent's quoted statements includes the necessity of "desire" and the necessity of the "laver of regeneration" because it says this: you cannot have justification without...” Without what? You cannot have justification without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire thereof. You need both.”
RomanTheo: Again, if this were true it would mean infant baptisms are invalid, since infants receive the laver without desire.
See above. The persons representing the child take that responsibility on their behalf. But desire is necessary even if by proxy.
Now, since the Church’s universal disciplines are infallible, and since the universal practice of the Church for two thousand years has been to baptize infants, it proves that your interpretation of Trent – which is contrary to that of the Magisterium (quoted earlier) and every single theologian without exception since the time of the Council – is dead wrong.
Baptism is necessary for all men for salvation.
-
FALSE!!!
What this character does is to imprint the likeness of Our Lord, the Son of God, onto our souls (similar to how Holy Orders works, but to a lesser degree). When we bear this mark, God the Father recognizes us as His sons. Without being His sons in this manner, we cannot enter into the inner life of the Holy Trinity and see God as He is in the beatific vision.
Sorry, but you are mistaken once again. The character does not make a person an adopted child of God. Rather, it gives him a participation in the priesthood of Christ and configures him to Christ in such a way that he can receive Christ in the Eucharist.
Monsignor Fenton: “St. Thomas taught, further, that, since the sacramental character is the factor by which men are commissioned to receive or to deliver to their fellows the realities which belong to the rite of the Christian religion, and since the works of the Christian religion themselves pertain to the priesthood of Christ, that these sacramental characters are nothing less than sharrings or partaking in the Lord’s priesthood, derived from Our Lord Himself. … According to the Angelic Doctor the faithful are configured to Christ in the sense that ‘they partake of a certain spiritual power with respect to the acraments and to those things that pertain to divine worship.’ The notion of worship or the fulfillment of the obligations of religion is always inextricably bound up with the concept of the sacramental character through the writings of St. Thomas.”
The sacramental character configures them to Christ insofar as it enables them to partake in the public worship of God on earth. It does not make a man an adopted child of God.
You said: "When we bear this mark, God the Father recognizes us as His sons." But if that were true, it would mean God recognizes as his sons the baptized souls in hell, which is absurd. It is the justified souls – i.e., the souls that participate in the divine life of God (sanctifying grace) – who are the adopted children of God, not those who possess the baptismal character - many of whom are cut off from God for all eternity and suffering the eternal pains of hell..
-
Regarding BoD, the progressivist likes to jump topic and worry about the "noble indigenous native on a desert island" far away, and whether it's fair that he wouldn't be given Baptism or instruction in the Faith, why, he's most likely to live and die like his ancestors without ever having heard the name of Jesus pronounced. Then Brother Francis would say, Why would he be selectively concerned about the noble native in a distant land when we can't get the truth into the minds of our next-door neighbor walking on the Boston Common?
.
These progressivists really need to carefully read the scriptural narrative of Acts 8, 26-40, Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch, the only actual "noble native on a desert land" we know from the Bible, and ask themselves, why God would not let the lonely eunuch from the Bible perish in his "invincible ignorance" in the middle of Africa; but instead sends Philip the Evangelist with the sole purpose of instructing him and water baptizing him?
If there is an example of a true invincible ignorance working, we find it in this lonely Ethiopian eunuch. Because he is sincere and truly seeking, God, Who searches all hearts and knows all dispositions, makes sure to send him a missionary in the middle of nowhere. A true, salvific invincible ignorance is that which is so strong that actually calls God to send someone to offer the tangible Sacraments to the poor, persistent soul who is calling, instead of letting him perish without that which is much necessary for salvation, according to what has been divinely revealed.
-
Quote from: Last Tradhican on April 21, 2018, 04:24:16 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ludwig-ott-implicitly-refutes-baptism-of-desire/msg604974/#msg604974)
Can you name a theologian in the 19th and 20th century that rejects the theory of salvation by belief in a God that rewards, that is, salvation without desire to be baptized, without a desire to be a Catholic, without belief in Christ or the Holy Trinity?
As a matter of fact, 99% of those that defend baptism of desire, reject the very idea of desire being necessary for salvation, nor belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity
Dear Roman Theo,
Answer this question above, and do you also believe also believe in salvation without "without desire to be baptized, without a desire to be a Catholic, without belief in Christ or the Holy Trinity?" and accept the same teaching in Vatican II?
-
People who live in inconsistencies of thoughts are just trying to make what they like believable. One can't have any inconsistencies when one pocesses the truth. Dogma as it is written is final truth. If dogma must be interpreted to mean something else, then it is useless.
-
Sorry, but you are mistaken once again. The character does not make a person an adopted child of God. Rather, it gives him a participation in the priesthood of Christ and configures him to Christ in such a way that he can receive Christ in the Eucharist.
Nope. You're missing the ontological change that takes place in the soul which then allows reception of the Holy Eucharist. So you reduce it to some kind of "admission pass" to receive Holy Communion.
-
You said: "When we bear this mark, God the Father recognizes us as His sons." But if that were true, it would mean God recognizes as his sons the baptized souls in hell, which is absurd. It is the justified souls – i.e., the souls that participate in the divine life of God (sanctifying grace) – who are the adopted children of God, not those who possess the baptismal character - many of whom are cut off from God for all eternity and suffering the eternal pains of hell..
You miss the distinction between in potency and in act. And, yes, in fact, some saints talk about the horror of someone marked with the character of Baptism being in hell, bearing that mark on his soul. You'll also find priests in hell who are ontologically configured to the likeness of Christ, forever, in persona Christi.
You mentioned that the character gives us a participation in Christ. How? In the priesthood, the person of the priest becomes ontologically conformed to the person of Christ. Same, to a lesser extent, with the Baptismal character.
-
It does not make a man an adopted child of God.
It's as if I had a son who died. He still retains the genetic markers for being my son, except that he's no longer my son in the flesh, having died. So too the Baptismal character is very much like that genetic signature or imprint ... except that the soul could be dead. That's also why it is said that those who lose the state of grace remain members (parts of the body) of the Church even while being dead members.
-
From the thread - 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 those who teach 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.)[/size]
[/size]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
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)
-
Happenby: Nope. In fact, its necessary for the person representing the child to desire the sacrament on behalf of the child.
Reply: Incorrect. The person representing the child (the godparents) professes the faith for the child; they do not desire baptism for him.
If it were necessary for a child to have a representative "desire baptism" on their behalf, the baptism of an infant with no one but the minister of the sacrament present would be invalid. What we see is that your personal interpretation of the canons of Trent is leading you from one error to another.
-
Nope. You're missing the ontological change that takes place in the soul which then allows reception of the Holy Eucharist. So you reduce it to some kind of "admission pass" to receive Holy Communion.
Ladislaus, think about what you are arguing. Do you really believe a passive potency makes a person an adopted child of God, rather than the supernatural habit of sanctifying grace, which is a created participation in the life of God Himself?
We are adopted children of God when we share in the divine nature of God, not when we possess a passive potentiality.
-
Ladislaus, think about what you are arguing. Do you really believe a passive potency makes a person an adopted child of God, rather than the supernatural habit of sanctifying grace, which is a created participation in the life of God Himself?
We are adopted children of God when we share in the divine nature of God, not when we possess a passive potentiality.
Again, for the 4th time, it doesn't suffice by itself, but is necessary. You can't have something in actu without first having it in potentia. In other words, the Baptismal character is a necessary but not sufficient cause.
-
Happenby: Nope. In fact, its necessary for the person representing the child to desire the sacrament on behalf of the child.
Reply: Incorrect. The person representing the child (the godparents) professes the faith for the child; they do not desire baptism for him.
Well, you disagree with St. Alphonsus on that one; he teaches that the godparents vicariously desire and intend to receive the Sacrament for him.
-
.
Thank you.
.
I'm currently reading The Loyolas and the Cabots by Sister Catherine. You can't make this stuff up!
That book is the best book I've read on that whole charade. This paragraph is what always immediately comes to mind whenever this book is brought up.
"The strangest feature of this case is not, as might be commonly supposed, that some Boston Catholics were holding heresy and were being rebuked by their legitimate superiors. It is, rather, that these same Catholics were accusing their ecclesiastical superiors and academic mentors of teaching heresy, and as thanks for having been so solicitous were immediately suppressed by these same authorities on the score of being intolerant and bigoted. If history takes any note of this large incident (in what is often called the most Catholic city in the United States) it may interest historians to note that those who were punished were never accused of holding heresy, but only of being intolerant, unbroadminded and disobedient. It is also to be noted that the same authorities have never gone to the slightest trouble to point out wherein the accusation made against them by the “Boston group” is unfounded. In a heresy case usually a subject is being punished by his superior for denying a doctrine of his church. In this heresy case a subject of the Church is being punished by his superior for professing a defined doctrine."
-
Happenby: Nope. In fact, its necessary for the person representing the child to desire the sacrament on behalf of the child.
Reply: Incorrect. The person representing the child (the godparents) professes the faith for the child; they do not desire baptism for him.
If it were necessary for a child to have a representative "desire baptism" on their behalf, the baptism of an infant with no one but the minister of the sacrament present would be invalid. What we see is that your personal interpretation of the canons of Trent is leading you from one error to another.
Wrong. The person representing the child must affirm they desire baptism for the child. Or it doesn't happen. Have you never been to a baptism? Or weren't you paying attention? The Church does not baptized the unwilling.
-
Readers of dogmas work from the foundation of dogma. With readers of dogmas like myself, if you want to convince me about some subject that has been thoroughly defined, like EENS, you have to debate with dogma that is clear. This because dogma is the final judgement on a matter previously in dispute and must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them. DENY THEM.
On the other hand, with interpreters of dogma, the actually dogmas mean nothing, they must be interpreted by "an expert". From there they go seeking teachers according to their own beliefs. As anyone who is honest with themselves will see, these experts (Novus Ordo, SSPX, CMRI) have today concluded that the Athanasian Creed does not say that one must believe in Christ and the Holy Trinity. If you want proof that dogmas MEAN NOTHING to them, and the Denial of dogma, there is no better example.
-
Honestly, I do not see why any strict EENSer debates with these deniers of the need for baptism, the need for desire for baptism, the need to be a Catholic, the need to believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Their defending of BOD of the catechumen is just a smoke screen for total unbelief in EENS.
I have a family to take care of, I do not have the inclination or time to waste on these people who are so embarrassed of what they believe that they do not come out upfront and declare what they really believe, that people can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, without any desire to be baptized or Catholic, and without belief in the Incarnation (Christ) and the Holy Trinity.
Cut to the chase!
-
Again, for the 4th time, it doesn't suffice by itself, but is necessary. You can't have something in actu without first having it in potentia. In other words, the Baptismal character is a necessary but not sufficient cause.
I cited St. Thomas and Fr. Fenton teaching that the character is a spiritual potency to receive the Eucharist. If you reject this, and instead maintain that it is a potency to receive sanctifying grace, produce an authoritative source who teaches it. Good luck.
-
Well, you disagree with St. Alphonsus on that one; he teaches that the godparents vicariously desire and intend to receive the Sacrament for him.
The validity of infant baptism is not dependent upon the godparents representing the child by desiring baptism for them. If it were, an infant baptism that took place without godparents would be invalid. Is that what you're suggesting?
-
Honestly, I do not see why any strict EENSer debates with these deniers of the need for baptism, the need for desire for baptism, the need to be a Catholic, the need to believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. Their defending of BOD of the catechumen is just a smoke screen for total unbelief in EENS.
Correct, the ardent promotion of BoD and denunciation of "Feeneyism" has always been driven by a crusade against EENS in general rather than by sympathy for the rare case of a catechumen who would die before Baptism. Sure, St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the subject ... in a couple paragraphs from thousands of pages of writing. But for a lot of the Cushingites today it's become their life's mission to promote BoD.
-
As for BoD and BoB, his position was that since we cannot know the state of a soul of a dying person because we cannot know his interior disposition (only God can discern the thought of our hearts), what becomes of such souls who have not been baptized is left to the providence of God. It's not OUR DECISION what happens. It's God's decision.
.
BoB and BoD advocates like "RomanTheo" above are wont to rip that prerogative of God away from Him and make it their own.
That is absurd. Professing the Church's doctrine concerning baptism of desire, as understood and explained by every theologian since the Council of Trent, is not ripping any prerogative away from God. On the contrary, claiming that God cannot save a person who has not been baptized by water is both removing the "decision" from God, and restricting His ability to justify soul by requiring a created reality, upon which He is dependent. Such an idea subjects the Creator to a creature - the infinite to a finite.
-
Correct, the ardent promotion of BoD and denunciation of "Feeneyism" has always been driven by a crusade against EENS in general rather than by sympathy for the rare case of a catechumen who would die before Baptism. Sure, St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine dealt with the subject ... in a couple paragraphs from thousands of pages of writing. But for a lot of the Cushingites today it's become their life's mission to promote BoD.
Do you see how they avoid mentioning their real belief, this Theo character must be the same guy that used the avatar of The Cure of Ars.
-
Do you see how they avoid mentioning their real belief, this Theo character must be the same guy that used the avatar of The Cure of Ars.
Yeah, this could quite possibly be LoT again. He's signed up under a couple different names over time.
-
and restricting His ability to justify soul by requiring a created reality, upon which He is dependent. Such an idea subjects the Creator to a creature - the infinite to a finite.
Idiot. WE are not restricting anything. We're talking about the restrictions that God has placed on us, not the other way around, and understanding the conditions for salvation that He has laid down. If God said that we could only be saved by smearing Jello Pudding on the tips of our noses, then we would be bound by that.
-
one is obliged to confess even when one is Perfectly Contrite and before recieving communion. baptism of desire doesnt confer the sacramental character
-
Do you see how they avoid mentioning their real belief, this Theo character must be the same guy that used the avatar of The Cure of Ars.
.
Interesting, as soon as you pegged him as LoT he disappeared from this subforum and hasn't been back.
-
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15081.htm
On the Soul and its Origin by St. Augustine
Chapter 11
Accordingly, the thief, who was no follower of the Lord previous to the cross, but His confessor upon the cross, from whose case a presumption is sometimes taken, or attempted, against the sacrament of baptism, is reckoned by St. Cyprian among the martyrs who are baptized in their own blood, as happens to many unbaptized persons in times of hot persecution. For to the fact that he confessed the crucified Lord so much weight is attributed and so much availing value assigned by Him who knows how to weigh and value such evidence, as if he had been crucified for the Lord. Then, indeed, his faith on the cross flourished when that of the disciples failed, and that without recovery if it had not bloomed again by the resurrection of Him before the terror of whose death it had drooped. They despaired of Him when dying — he hoped when joined with Him in dying; they fled from the author of life — he prayed to his companion in punishment; they grieved as for the death of a man — he believed that after death He was to be a king; they forsook the sponsor of their salvation — he honoured the companion of His cross.
There was discovered in him the full measure of a martyr, who then believed in Christ when they fell away who were destined to be martyrs. All this, indeed, was manifest to the eyes of the Lord, who at once bestowed so great felicity on one who, though not baptized, was yet washed clean in the blood, as it were, of martyrdom. But even of ourselves, who cannot reflect with how much faith, how much hope, how much charity he might have undergone death for Christ when living, who begged life of Him when dying? Besides all this, there is the circuмstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour's side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example of the thief; and let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and where he pleases. For this is what the heresy of Pelagius promised them: he neither fears damnation for infants, whom he does not regard as having any original sin, nor does he give them the hope of the kingdom of heaven, since they do not approach to the sacrament of baptism. As for this man, however, although he acknowledges that infants are involved in original sin, he yet boldly promises them, even without baptism, the kingdom of heaven. This even the Pelagians had not the boldness to do, though asserting infants to be absolutely without sin. See, then, what a network of presumptuous opinion he entangles, unless he regret having committed such views to writing.
-
Everything about BoD revolves around speculation as to what would or would not be "fair" for God to do ... which does nothing more than open up a "vortex of confusion", as St. Augustine called it, once he had come to his senses and rejected his earlier youthful speculation regarding BoD. He rejected it after many years of grappling with the Pelagians, and realizing that BoD led inexorably to Pelagianism.
I'm not so certain right now how that passage is to be taken, after reading earlier from the same treatise.
On the Soul and its Origin
Book II
Chapter 17
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15082.htm
The new-fangled Pelagian heretics have been most justly condemned by the authority of catholic councils and of the Apostolic See, on the ground of their having dared to give to unbaptized infants a place of rest and salvation, even apart from the kingdom of heaven. This they would not have dared to do, if they did not deny their having original sin, and the need of its remission by the sacrament of baptism. This man, however, professes the catholic belief on this point, admitting that infants are tied in the bonds of original sin, and yet he releases them from these bonds without the laver of regeneration, and after death, in his compassion, he admits them into paradise; while, with a still ampler compassion, he introduces them after the resurrection even to the kingdom of heaven. Such compassion did Saul see fit to assume when he spared the king whom God commanded to be slain; 1 Samuel 15:9 deservedly, however, was his disobedient compassion, or (if you prefer it) his compassionate disobedience, reprobated and condemned, that man may be on his guard against extending mercy to his fellow-man, in opposition to the sentence of Him by whom man was made.
Truth, by the mouth of Itself incarnate, proclaims as if in a voice of thunder: "Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 And in order to except martyrs from this sentence, to whose lot it has fallen to be slain for the name of Christ before being washed in the baptism of Christ, He says in another passage, "He that loses his life for my sake shall find it." Matthew 10:39 And so far from promising the abolition of original sin to any one who has not been regenerated in the laver of Christian faith, the apostle exclaims, "By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Romans 5:18 And as a counterbalance against this condemnation, the Lord exhibits the help of His salvation alone, saying, "He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned." Mark 16:16
Now the mystery of this believing in the case of infants is completely effected by the response of the sureties by whom they are taken to baptism; and unless this be effected, they all pass by the offense of one into condemnation. And yet, in opposition to such clear declarations uttered by the Truth, forth marches before all men a vanity which is more foolish than pitiful, and says: Not only do infants not pass into condemnation, though no laver of Christian faith absolves them from the chain of original sin, but they even after death have an intermediate enjoyment of the felicities of paradise, and after the resurrection they shall possess even the happiness of the kingdom of heaven. Now, would this man dare to say all this in opposition to the firmly-established catholic faith, if he had not presumptuously undertaken to solve a question which transcends his powers touching the origin of the soul?
On the Soul and its Origin
Book III
Chapter 13
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm
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.
I think after reading the earlier chapter from book II, "whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism" does not necessarily mean baptism of water, when reading this from St. Augustine, the emphasis is on "the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass."
The vortex of confusion seems to be in cases where it is purposed that God has ordained that such and such an event is to occur, but then to say it has not occurred. Not that God has willed some event, and we resist Him, but rather by the foreknowledge of God some event is to occur, but doesn't. Or rather predestination of some event cannot be overturned.