Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Pope St. Leo Taught Catechumens In Danger of Death Must Be Baptized  (Read 915 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xenophon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 95
  • Reputation: +75/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • hi
    • Papist Coffee
Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 16, Oct. 21, 447, #6: “In a case of necessity any time is allowable for baptism.  Wherefore, as it is quite clear that these two seasons [Easter and Pentecost] of which we have been speaking are the rightful ones for baptizing the elect in Church, we admonish you, beloved, not to associate other days with this observance.  Because, although there are other feasts also to which much reverence is due in God’s honor, nevertheless a rational and mystical exception must be observed by us for this principal and greatest sacrament: not, however, prohibiting the license to succor those who are in danger by administering Baptism to them at any time.  For while we put off the vows of those who are not pressed by ill health and live in peaceful security to those two closely connected and cognate feasts, let us not at any time refuse this which is the only safeguard of true salvation to anyone in peril of death, in the crisis of a siege, in the distress of persecution, in the terror of shipwreck.”

Why would Pope St. Leo teach in a letter directly addressing the topic of Catechumens and baptism that there is only one "safeguard of true salvation"? Even describing how the ways claimed by adherents of BOD and BOB, which to them, would somehow provide the effects of baptism without actually receiving it, still only have one single safeguard... Namely, baptism with true and natural water. If there is anywhere where BOD or BOB should be have been taught if it truly was the doctrine of the Church, it would be in this letter from Pope St. Leo, yet we only find the contrary...

Very good video on the topic for those who haven't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-y5yJTCMWg
“The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” Council of Florence, Session 6

Offline SimpleMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5037
  • Reputation: +1975/-245
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Forgive me, I thought that we baptized whenever it was needed, not just during two seasons of the year.  How did I miss this, in all of these years of being Catholic?

    Even if that is the case, needless to say, baptisms of necessity can and should be done at any time.


    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5037
    • Reputation: +1975/-245
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • OK, the time has passed for me to modify my previous post.  My son is nauseated, throwing up, and I had to drop everything, to go get him medicine from the other house.

    Let me make sure I understand.  Let's say it's July.  Joe Blow goes to the priest and said he'd like to be catechized and baptized.  While I am no fan of "quickie catechesis" --- "here, read the catechism, come to class every week, get the information in your head, then we'll do the baptism" --- neither am I a fan of prolonged waiting to be baptized.  On the Novus Ordo side of the moon, this whole RCIA thing, drawing it out as long as two years, seems to me, to be a tacit rejection of the necessity of baptism for salvation.  People die in their sleep of unknown frailties, and die in car accidents, every day of the world.  Prince Philip recently died in his sleep (not entirely unexpected given his age and known frailty).  So did Margaret Thatcher, Warren Carroll, and Jackie Joyner-Kersee.   If I am a priest, and Joe Blow comes to me the first of July, I tell him "we'll start the lessons now, but you have to wait until Easter, regardless of how 'ready' you are, let's say, in November", then he dies in a car wreck on New Year's Eve, how is it "okay" for me to have had to force him to wait, die without baptism, with everything that goes with that (if we intepret the necessity for baptism strictly)"?

    Somebody help me out here, eh?

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12496
    • Reputation: +7940/-2451
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Forgive me, I thought that we baptized whenever it was needed, not just during two seasons of the year.  How did I miss this, in all of these years of being Catholic?

    Pope St Leo the Great was from the 400s, when it was common for Baptisms to only take place twice a year (effectively, it was once a year, because Easter and Pentacost are only separated by about a month).  I'm sure there were exceptions for danger of death.
    .
    I don't know when baptisms were expanded to "when it was needed" but that's where we are now.  I assume that the former practice was due to time constraints of few priests but also a liturgical celebration so that at the Church could celebrate at one or two times, together. 

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5037
    • Reputation: +1975/-245
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pope St Leo the Great was from the 400s, when it was common for Baptisms to only take place twice a year (effectively, it was once a year, because Easter and Pentacost are only separated by about a month).  I'm sure there were exceptions for danger of death.
    .
    I don't know when baptisms were expanded to "when it was needed" but that's where we are now.  I assume that the former practice was due to time constraints of few priests but also a liturgical celebration so that at the Church could celebrate at one or two times, together.
    Okay, this makes sense now.  I had never heard, in traditionalist circles, of baptism being limited only to specific times of the year (and only about a two-month window at that).  I knew I couldn't have missed something that prominent.

    It does, sound, though, that the whole Novus Ordo/RCIA/"baptism nice but not necessary" mentality is informed by this kind of thinking.  RCIA is this whole "groupy-groupy", collectivist mindset that is the Novus Ordo's bread and butter, and we reject it out of hand for many very good reasons.  I have heard that many things, including Humanae vitae, either get very short shrift, or are ignored entirely, in these RCIA programs.  And I have to think that group pressure, and the collective will, would have to take an outsized place in such programs.


    Offline Joe Cupertino

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 80
    • Reputation: +74/-8
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why would Pope St. Leo teach in a letter directly addressing the topic of Catechumens and baptism that there is only one "safeguard of true salvation"? Even describing how the ways claimed by adherents of BOD and BOB, which to them, would somehow provide the effects of baptism without actually receiving it, still only have one single safeguard... Namely, baptism with true and natural water. If there is anywhere where BOD or BOB should be have been taught if it truly was the doctrine of the Church, it would be in this letter from Pope St. Leo, yet we only find the contrary...

    Very good video on the topic for those who haven't seen it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-y5yJTCMWg

    St. Thomas cites Pope St. Leo the Great's letter three times in ST, III, Q. 68, Art. 3 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm), while teaching BOD in the same place.  He read this letter and found it to be consistent with BOD, not contradictory.  The Angelic Doctor understood Pope St. Leo the Great's letter better than us and our modern Benedictine frauds.


    Quote
    Article 3. Whether Baptism should be deferred?
    Objection 1. It seems that Baptism should be deferred. For Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Two seasons," i.e. Easter and Whitsuntide, "are fixed by the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore we admonish your Beatitude not to add any other days to this custom." Therefore it seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but delayed until the aforesaid seasons.
    Objection 2. Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of Agde (Can. xxxiv): "If Jews whose bad faith often "returns to the vomit," wish to submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight months enter the porch of the church with the catechumens; and if they are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve the grace of Baptism." Therefore men should not be baptized at once, and Baptism should be deferred for a certain fixed time.
    Objection 3. Further, as we read in Isaiah 27:9, "this is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." Now sin seems to be taken away, or at any rate lessened, if Baptism be deferred. First, because those who sin after Baptismsin more grievously, according to Hebrews 10:29: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath . . . esteemed the blood of the testament," i.e. Baptism, "unclean, by which he was sanctified?" Secondly, because Baptism takes away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is deferred, the more sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that Baptism should be deferred for a long time.
    On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 5:8): "Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day." But the perfect conversion to God is of those who are regenerated in Christ by Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.
    I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.
    On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (Article 2). And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under false pretenses, according to 1 John 4:1: "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God." And those who approach Baptism are put to this test, when their faith and morals are subjected to proof for a space of time. Secondly, this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized; for they require a certain space of time in order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be drilled in those things that pertain to the Christian mode of life. Thirdly, a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal festivities, viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion.
    There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once (Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10). Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at any time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (Article 2, Reply to Objection 2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the time appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the permission of the authorities of the Church. But even this sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent contrition, which takes the place of Baptism, as stated above (III:66:11).
    Reply to Objection 1. This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the celebration of Baptism at two seasons, is to be understood "with the exception of the danger of death" (which is always to be feared in children) as stated above.
    Reply to Objection 2. This decree concerning the Jews was for a safeguard to the Church, lest they corrupt the faith of simple people, if they be not fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads further on, "if within the appointed time they are threatened with danger of sickness, they should be baptized."
    Reply to Objection 3. Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, removes not only past sins, but hinders the commission of future sins. Now this is the point to be considered—that men may not sin: it is a secondary consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that their sins be washed away, according to 1 John 2:1-2: "My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just; and He is the propitiation for our sins."