Author Topic: Pope Innocent II on Baptism of Desire (Read 5093 times)

Nishant · « **on:** November 27, 2014, 10:22:37 AM »

This is Denzinger 388.

Quote

"To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of Baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read, brother, in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God, where among other things it is written, 'Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.' Read again also the book of the Blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your Church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned."

This is the true meaning of Baptism of Desire. Holding the Catholic Faith taught by Holy Mother Church, persevering in the name of Christ and having a true desire for Baptism by desiring to do all that the Church commands. In this case, the person was invincibly in error about the fact of his invalid Baptism, and therefore his desire for Baptism was not explicit, but merely implicit, for he did not know he was unbaptized. His Catholic Faith and confession of Christ, however, was explicit, as it need to be. This is an example of a soul saved by Baptism of Desire, which therefore proves both Feeneyism wrong, and strongly reaffirms that the Catholic Faith is necessary for attaining salvation, as all the Doctors teach. As a side note, that Innocent II, following St. Ambrose who said the same of Valentian, says that prayers and sacrifices are necessary for his soul, proves that souls saved by Baptism of Desire ordinarily go to purgatory.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 27, 2014, 06:45:36 PM »

Actually, this quote is highly problematic for Baptism of Desire.

Evidently this priest never knew that he was unbaptized. Really the only thing you can figure is that this priest died and that, after he died, someone looked around and couldn't find a baptismal record. In point of fact, if anyone knew before he died that he was unbaptized, then a) he would not have been allowed to function as a priest and b) someone would have baptized him. This is a very strange set of circuмstances. Presumably before he was ordained to the priesthood, someone would have checked his baptismal records.

Now, since this priest evidently didn't know he wasn't baptized, he couldn't even really have a Baptism of Desire.

Pope Innocent here, in this letter, is actually speaking about "Baptism of Faith", not "Baptism of Desire" ... saying that the mechanism is the mere possession of supernatural faith without any votum. Consequently, where does the Sacrament come into play? It doesn't. Pope Innocent's "Baptism of Faith" actually contradicts Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. This idea that the desire was implicit in just thinking he was Catholic is plain silly. Nor does Innocent mention this anywhere at all in this letter. He simply thinks that there's some "Baptism of Faith" mechanism at play, without any relationship to the Sacrament of Baptism.

Not to mention that this letter's authorship and authenticity are both disputed, and that he wrote it to a single bishop in the capacity of a private theologian and was not addressing this authoritatively to the universal Church.. In a similar letter, the same Innocent proposes the error that the Consecration at Mass would be valid if the priest merely thought but did not actually utter the words of consecration, something for which St. Thomas attacked him.

And clearly St. Alphonsus was greatly mistaken in adducing this as "evidence" for BoD being de fide. Of course that was before a definition of infallibility, but in retrospect this letter doesn't even come CLOSE to meeting the notes of infallibility.

At the end of the day, this letter means exactly nothing.

And, Innocent relies on the authority of St. Augustine (who later rejected BoD) and St. Ambrose (who's Valentinian oration is highly ambiguous). There's just nothing here.

And, as the final nail in the coffin, how can Innocent POSSIBLY know that this priest would have gone to heaven? He "assert(s) without hesitation" that the priest would have gone to heaven. He has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT regardless. Even if there would be such a thing as BoD in a hypothetical sense, there's absolutely zero guarantee of this and absolutely no way of knowing whether this "priest" would have had the dispositions necessary for BoD to be in play. At best he could have said there was a possibility that he could have gone to heaven.

Not to mention that it shows grave ignorance on the part of Innocence that he doesn't even bother to mention the issue that all the priest's Masses were invalid and that he was no priest at all given his lack of Baptism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 27, 2014, 06:50:08 PM »

How does this one letter prove "Feeneyism" wrong, Nishant, and yet an entire Ecuмenical Council could teach serious error to the Universal Church. This was just a letter addressed to a single Bishop and does not have any authoritative tone behind it. Not to mention that it's authorship is disputed. Yet Vatican II could be wrong? And this letter is infallible? That's extremely inconsistent.

Nishant · « **Reply #3 on:** November 27, 2014, 09:21:01 PM »

Nado, you've been shown countless texts, from theologians and the Magisterium, explaining that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, Nostis et Nobiscuм, "ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation." Summo Iugiter Studio, "some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life." Your opinion is liberal at best, and you are misguided on this point as the Pope teaches. Msgr. Fenton informs you that most theologians taught the Catholic Faith was necessary for salvation even up until the 1950's. If you don't want to believe what the Church teaches, nobody can help you.

Dear Ladislaus, I consider Trent, its Catechism and St. Pius V's condemnation of Michael Baius' to be the strongest evidence of the doctrine of BOD. But this letter isn't unimportant, it establishes what salvation by true implicit desire would look like. Also, I disagree that St. Ambrose' oration is "ambiguous", not a single one of the Doctors ever thought so, St. Bernard, St. Thomas, St. Robert and others expressly did not. That is Fr. Feeney's mistake. St. Ambrose clearly explains that as martyrs are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him also. This is not ambiguous, that St. Ambrose says prayers are necessary rules out both water baptism and BOB. This is the same meaning Innocent II applies to the priest, who persevered both in "faith" and "in confession" which includes the votum. Also, that St. Augustine changed his opinion is by no means universally admitted by traditional scholars. Even if he did, what matters is the teaching of his that the Magisterium approves, and that is that "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." St. Alphonsus, you say, was mistaken, but the many Popes who approved his work as free from error and infallibly safe to hold and teach did not think so. Their approval shows the letter is truly authoritative. Finally, if you still dispute this letter's authenticity, Trent saying contrition perfect by charity or love of God together with the desire of the sacraments remits sins, St. Pius V applying this both to catechumens and penitents closes the question.

Cantarella · « **Reply #4 on:** November 28, 2014, 12:38:09 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Actually, this quote is highly problematic for Baptism of Desire.

Evidently this priest never knew that he was unbaptized. Really the only thing you can figure is that this priest died and that, after he died, someone looked around and couldn't find a baptismal record. In point of fact, if anyone knew before he died that he was unbaptized, then a) he would not have been allowed to function as a priest and b) someone would have baptized him. This is a very strange set of circuмstances. Presumably before he was ordained to the priesthood, someone would have checked his baptismal records.

Now, since this priest evidently didn't know he wasn't baptized, he couldn't even really have a Baptism of Desire.

Pope Innocent here, in this letter, is actually speaking about "Baptism of Faith", not "Baptism of Desire" ... saying that the mechanism is the mere possession of supernatural faith without any votum. Consequently, where does the Sacrament come into play? It doesn't. Pope Innocent's "Baptism of Faith" actually contradicts Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. This idea that the desire was implicit in just thinking he was Catholic is plain silly. Nor does Innocent mention this anywhere at all in this letter. He simply thinks that there's some "Baptism of Faith" mechanism at play, without any relationship to the Sacrament of Baptism.

Not to mention that this letter's authorship and authenticity are both disputed, and that he wrote it to a single bishop in the capacity of a private theologian and was not addressing this authoritatively to the universal Church.. In a similar letter, the same Innocent proposes the error that the Consecration at Mass would be valid if the priest merely thought but did not actually utter the words of consecration, something for which St. Thomas attacked him.

And clearly St. Alphonsus was greatly mistaken in adducing this as "evidence" for BoD being de fide. Of course that was before a definition of infallibility, but in retrospect this letter doesn't even come CLOSE to meeting the notes of infallibility.

At the end of the day, this letter means exactly nothing.

And, Innocent relies on the authority of St. Augustine (who later rejected BoD) and St. Ambrose (who's Valentinian oration is highly ambiguous). There's just nothing here.

And, as the final nail in the coffin, how can Innocent POSSIBLY know that this priest would have gone to heaven? He "assert(s) without hesitation" that the priest would have gone to heaven. He has ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT regardless. Even if there would be such a thing as BoD in a hypothetical sense, there's absolutely zero guarantee of this and absolutely no way of knowing whether this "priest" would have had the dispositions necessary for BoD to be in play. At best he could have said there was a possibility that he could have gone to heaven.

Not to mention that it shows grave ignorance on the part of Innocence that he doesn't even bother to mention the issue that all the priest's Masses were invalid and that he was no priest at all given his lack of Baptism.

That letter of Pope Innocent was never a decree for the universal Church but a personal letter which was a response to a disciplinary question. It is strange that appears at Denzinger at all, along with the other letter, even more erroneous and doctrinally incorrect, about the Jew self - baptism.

Regarding Pope Innocent, this is what St. Thomas said about one of his errors ( that Christ consecrated by His divine power without words)

Quote from: st. Thomas

‘In good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate.’ But in opposition to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ ‘blessed,’ and this blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point’” (Summa, III, Q. 78, Art. 1, reply to objection 1).

Cantarella · « **Reply #5 on:** November 28, 2014, 12:57:45 AM »

Regarding st. Alphonsus in that famous quote, he apparently says that the Baptism of Desire is "de fide"; but then in this quote it seems to be a contradiction:

Quote from: Alphonsus

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)

St Alphonsus teaches that "BOD" does not provide the remission of the punishment due to sin, however, it is de fide dogma that the grace of Baptism, as defined infallibly, does indeed provides full remission of punishment due to sin, then it follows that the BOD st Alphonsus is talking here, cannot provide the grace of Baptism, let alone salvation, as understood in the Infallible Church teaching. In the quote itself, we find then a denial of the efficacy of "desire" for Baptism.

Trent defines the absolute need to be born again in water and Holy Ghost in order to be justified. This means the removal of every punishment due to sin. There is then a contradiction in St Alphonsus quote since in it, we actually find that the BOD he is speaking of, is not sufficient to obtain this remission of sin, and therefore, justification, first step for Salvation, which is sealed by water Baptism.

Jehanne · « **Reply #6 on:** November 28, 2014, 08:16:01 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

This is Denzinger 388.

Quote
"To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of Baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read, brother, in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God, where among other things it is written, 'Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.' Read again also the book of the Blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your Church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned."

This is the true meaning of Baptism of Desire. Holding the Catholic Faith taught by Holy Mother Church, persevering in the name of Christ and having a true desire for Baptism by desiring to do all that the Church commands. In this case, the person was invincibly in error about the fact of his invalid Baptism, and therefore his desire for Baptism was not explicit, but merely implicit, for he did not know he was unbaptized. His Catholic Faith and confession of Christ, however, was explicit, as it need to be. This is an example of a soul saved by Baptism of Desire, which therefore proves both Feeneyism wrong, and strongly reaffirms that the Catholic Faith is necessary for attaining salvation, as all the Doctors teach. As a side note, that Innocent II, following St. Ambrose who said the same of Valentian, says that prayers and sacrifices are necessary for his soul, proves that souls saved by Baptism of Desire ordinarily go to purgatory.

At a minimum, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are not heresies, and Father Feeney never claimed such, nor do any of his followers. (The Dimonds are not followers of Father Feeney; in fact, the Saint Benedict Centers will hang-up on them when they call.) But, once again, the teaching of Saint Thomas on the question of heresy, schism, and infidelity was universal:

Quote

"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica Ia IIae, q.103, a.4)

This is why Jews, pagans, infidels, Protestants, and all Coptics and Eastern Orthodox "Christians" cannot be regarded as being in a state of sanctifying grace, whether they have received sacramental Baptism or not.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 28, 2014, 02:34:26 PM »

Quote from: Nado

What you appear to be implying is that you don't know how, theologically, an infant baptized at birth, and dying immediately, can go to heaven while explicitly believing NOTHING at all.

Because in infants the supernatural virtue of faith is infused ex opere operato through the Sacrament of Baptism, whereas in adults BoD would be ex opere operantis and would therefore require explicit belief in the core mysteries ... along with all the OTHER dispositions necessary in adults for justification (as taught by Trent).

There can be no Catholic faith without explicit belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity ... in adults. If you read the Council of Trent, it describes the dispositions necessary in ADULTS for justification in Baptism. These same conditions do not apply to infants due to the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament and a Church-supplied votum.

Your grasp of Sacramental theology is quite woeful for someone who pretends to pontificate about it on a forum.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 28, 2014, 02:38:14 PM »

Quote from: Nado

I have always believed the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.

It appears that you never believed this. Again, you pay lip service to a formula and then redefine all the terms; you redefine what "Catholic Faith" is to suit your own purposes.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 29, 2014, 12:13:37 PM »

Quote from: Nado

You do understand that a human being can actually have the divine virtue of Faith without explicitly believing any truths of the Faith, right?

Only those who have not reached the age of reason. You try to pretend that the supernatural virtue of faith can be merely infused in those who have reached the age of reason without positive intellectual assent. Nonsense. And that intellectual assent requires a minimum supernatural material content. Trent clearly made the distinction. Not only must adults have what theologians later termed fides initialis, but they must have all the other requisite dispositions for the Sacrament in order to benefit from a "Baptism of Desire". These dispositions are supplied by the Church ONLY FOR THOSE WHO LACK THE USE OF REASON.

Now, Nado, you contradict yourself yet again, because even the "MINORITY opinion" people assert that the existence of a Rewarder God is necessary by necessity of means in adults for supernatural faith. Consequently, they would hold the existence of a "Rewarder-Punisher God" as some "truths of the Faith" that MUST be believed. Consequently, even the minority opinionists would reject your statement as heretical. You are claiming that supernatural faith in adults can be purely formal without any material content whatsoever.

But Vatican I closed the book on the "minority opinion". "Minority opinion" was heretical to being with, since the Ordinary Universal Magisterium taught otherwise for the first 1600 years of Church history. But Vatican I explicitly taught that supernatural truth REQUIRES material content that "can only be known through revelation"; Rewarder God is NOT something that can only be known through revelation, such as the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.

But your previous post rejects even the minority opinion.

If you believe that someone who has attained the use of reason can have infused supernatural faith without even explicitly believing in the existence of a Rewarder-Punisher God, then you should be best friends with Jorge Bergoglio.

You JUST stated that adults can have supernatural faith without actually believing in ANYTHING at all. That clearly is manifest heresy on your part.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 29, 2014, 03:23:38 PM »

Apparently you struggle with English, Nado, but the MINORITY OPINION people REJECT your allegation that no one has to explicitly believe ANY truths of the Faith at all. In fact, they say that people must explicitly believe in the existence of the Rewarder God, and obviously they need to do so with a supernatural motive of faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2014, 04:18:54 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus
Apparently you struggle with English, Nado, but the MINORITY OPINION people REJECT your allegation that no one has to explicitly believe ANY truths of the Faith at all. In fact, they say that people must explicitly believe in the existence of the Rewarder God, and obviously they need to do so with a supernatural motive of faith.

For probably the third time now, that requirement is necessary in a case where one is hoping to actually baptize a person in danger of death.

Here we are discussing about what happens only in God's realm between he and souls, their conversion and baptism of desire. There is no major or minor. It is what Pius IX wrote about imposing limits to ignorance.

For probably the fifth time now, your opinion is heretical. No, these theologians were NOT talking about something that's a necessity of precept.

You are a gnostic-Pelagian heretic. You do not have the same faith that I do where people must come to a knowledge of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity in order to be saved. And my faith is the Faith of the Fathers who would not have countenanced your heretical drivel for even a second. If there is a soul who's in good will that God wishes to save, God can and will enlighten their minds or send a preacher to them to impart the truths necessary for salvation and even to confer the Sacrament of Baptism. That is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas; your problem is with him and not me.

You have absolutely ZERO grasp of theology and are not at all competent to discuss these matters.

Cantarella · « **Reply #12 on:** November 29, 2014, 05:24:43 PM »

God will draw souls to His flock, this is, the Holy Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

In the Book of Ezechiel, after revealing the promise of baptism (36:25), God tells us how His Spirit can change the heart of man and cause him to obey His commandments: (And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and do them¦ (36:26-27).

Christ says: (No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day¦ (v. 44). If one is to come to Christ, he must be drawn by the Father¦s efficacious grace; he cannot come to Christ by his own natural powers.

Do you really think that for the one who the Father draws will be impossible to receive Baptism (and the rest of the Sacraments) and thus fulfill His promise? No, the worthy souls that Gods draws will not be deprived of the means of Salvation.

The Sacraments needed for salvation are only dispensed by the Catholic Church, VISIBLY. Everyone outside It perishes.

Tridentine MT · « **Reply #13 on:** November 29, 2014, 11:19:24 PM »

Quote from: Nado

What you appear to be implying is that you don't know how, theologically, an infant baptized at birth, and dying immediately, can go to heaven while explicitly believing NOTHING at all.

What is the case with unborn babies, whether aborted or miscarried?

Tridentine MT · « **Reply #14 on:** November 29, 2014, 11:24:24 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The Sacraments needed for salvation are only dispensed by the Catholic Church, VISIBLY. Everyone outside It perishes.

How can one apply this to the opinion expressed here?