Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: curiouscatholic23 on December 11, 2011, 04:46:35 PM
-
Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?
-
I am not a bishop but I would never bend Christ's words to Nicodemus into some kind of a metaphor.
-
Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?
Why ask that question when Rome as said that someone can be saved if they obtain baptism of desire when it is morally impossible for them to be baptized with water? The Catechism of the Council of Trent said that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water. All sedevacantist bishops that I know of accept this teaching. I am sorry if you reject it yourself.
Well I am reading MHFM book "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" and it seems like BOD is an interpretation of man, not God. The Council of Trent has been wrongly interpreted it seems.
I havent finished the book, I am on page 200 but I am already convinced. I am wondering what bishops are out there in case I am certain I had a vocation. I am leaning in that direction it seems.
-
Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?
Why ask that question when Rome as said that someone can be saved if they obtain baptism of desire when it is morally impossible for them to be baptized with water? The Catechism of the Council of Trent said that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water. All sedevacantist bishops that I know of accept this teaching. I am sorry if you reject it yourself.
The catechism says no such thing.
Read what it says, not what you want it to say and you will see that it says no such thing.
-
Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?
I think this is unlikely. A traditionalist priest once told me that "Feeneyism is a lay heresy" because any priest who had a proper seminary education in theology would know that all the catechisms couldn't be wrong about baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Here are some priests who have written against Feeneyism. I have all of these, and I recommend them.
Father Rulleau:
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/6722/baptism-of-desire
Father Laisney:
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/3093/is-feeneyism-catholic
Father Cekada:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
-
I am a sedevecantist feeneyite bishop.
I make youtube videos. Believe me.
:rolleyes:
-
I am a sedevecantist feeneyite bishop.
I make youtube videos. Believe me.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, but I don't believe you. On an internet forum you can pretend to be anything or anyone.
-
I am a sedevecantist feeneyite bishop.
I make youtube videos. Believe me.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, but I don't believe you. On an internet forum you can pretend to be anything or anyone.
lol Canute- that's good you don't! I was being facetious.
Some people on this forum, (ie the OP) seem to believe anything they're told on the internet. I was trying to make a point.
-
:laugh1:
If I could have figured how to embed an image, I would have put up the cartoon about how on the internet, no one knows you're a dog!
-
(http://www.unc.edu/courses/jomc050/idog.jpg)
-
Does anyone know of any sedevacantist bishops who state the absolute need for water baptism?
Why ask that question when Rome as said that someone can be saved if they obtain baptism of desire when it is morally impossible for them to be baptized with water? The Catechism of the Council of Trent said that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water. All sedevacantist bishops that I know of accept this teaching. I am sorry if you reject it yourself.
The catechism says no such thing.
Read what it says, not what you want it to say and you will see that it says no such thing.
Same to you, Stubborn.
Please post what it says and I will.
-
Here's what the Roman Catechism says:-
[35. Adulti quomodo ante Baptismum instruendi sint.]
Diversam vero rationem in iis servandam esse, qui adulta aetate sunt, et perfectum rationis usum habent, qui scilicet ab infidelibus oriuntur, antiquae ecclesiae consuetudo declarat. Nam christiana quidem fides illis proponenda est, atque omni studio ad eam suscipiendam cohortandi, alliciendi, invitandi sunt. Quod si ad dominum Deum convertantur, tum vero monere oportet, ne, ultra tempus ab ecclesia praescriptum, baptismi sacramentum different. Nam cuм scriptum sit: Non tardes converti ad Dominum, et ne differas de die in diem; docendi sunt perfectam conversionem in nova per baptismum generatione positam esse. Praeterea, quo serius ad baptismum veniunt, eo diutius sibi carendum esse ceterorum sacramentorum usu et gratia, quibus christiana religio colitur, cuм ad ea sine baptismo nulli aditus patere possit: deinde etiam maximo fructu privari, quem ex baptismo percipimus; siquidem non solum omnium scelerum, quae antea admissa sunt, maculam et sordes baptismi aqua prorsus eluit ac tollit, sed divina gratia nos ornat, cuius ope et auxilio in posterum etiam peccata vitare possumus, iustitiamque et innocentiam tueri: qua in re summam christianae vitae constare facile omnes intelligunt.
[36. Adultis baptismum differendum esse demonstratur.]
Sed quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit tamen ecclesia baptismi sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit. Neque enim ea dilatio periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere supra dictum est, coniunctum habet; cuм illis, qui rationis usu praediti sunt, baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam, si repentinus aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutari aqua ablui possint. Contra vero haec dilatio aliquas videtur utilitates afferre. Primum enim, quoniam ab ecclesia diligenter providendum est, ne quis ad hoc sacramentum ficto et simulato animo accedat, eorum voluntas, qui baptismum petunt, magis exploratur atque perspicitur: cuius rei causa in antiquis conciliis decretum legimus, ut qui ex iudaeis ad fidem catholicam veniunt, antequam baptismus illis administretur, aliquot menses inter catechumenos essent: deinde in fidei doctrina, quam profiteri debent, et christianae vitae institutionibus erudiuntur perfectius. Praeterea, maior religionis cultus sacramento tribuitur, si constitutis tantum paschae et pentecostes diebus, solemni caeremonia baptismum suscipiant.
Ref: Catholic Church (1566) Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. (Rome: Manutius) pp.197-198.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ
Headings from the 1845 Rome edition. p.108 ff.
Here's my translation:-
[35. How adults should be instructed before baptism.]
The custom of the early Church testifies that a truly different method is to be kept for those who are at a mature age and have the complete use of reason, and for those who undoubtedly descend from infidels. For instance, the Christian faith is at least to be proposed to them, and they are also to be exhorted, drawn and invited to take it up with all zeal. If they are converted to the Lord God, then truly it is proper to advise them not to put off receiving the sacrament of baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church; for seeing that it is written: Do not delay to convert to the Lord, and do not postpone it from day to day, they should be taught that complete conversion, by a new coming into being through baptism is, to be highly valued; in addition, those who come late for baptism, still further lose for themselves the advantage and the grace of the other sacraments with which the Christian religion is adorned, since, without baptism, no one can be permitted to approach them [= the other sacraments]; then also they are deprived of the chief reward which we secure from baptism; because not only does the water of baptism wash off and entirely take away the stain and uncleaness of every evil deed which they had previously committed, but it adorns us with divine grace, by whose power and assistance we are also able to avoid sins in the future and to safeguard [our] righteousness and innocence; which, in reality, all easily understand to be the chief point of the Christian life.
[36. It is shown that the Baptism of adults is to be delayed.]
But nevertheless the Church has not been accustomed to bestow the sacrament of baptism at once upon this kind of person, whomsoever they might be, but has appointed that it should be deferred to a fixed season. Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation. Indeed, on the contrary, this delay seems to bring certain advantages. In the first place, in fact, because it is carefully provided for by the Church that, lest anyone approach this sacrament with a feigned and simulated spirit, the desire of those who seek baptism is, to a greater extent, investigated as well as observed, on account of which we read in ancient decrees of the Councils that those who come to the Catholic faith from the Jews, shall spend several months amongst the catechumens before baptism is administered to them. Then, they are to be completely instructed in the doctrine of the faith which they ought to profess, and in the institutions of the Christian life. Moreover, a greater degree of reverence is shown towards the sacrament, if it be arranged that, they receive baptism with solemn ceremony only on the days of Easter and Pentecost.
In brief, the Roman Catechism DOES teach what has since acquired the term "baptism of desire", but only in respect of adult catechumens who die before being baptised at the proper season for receiving the sacrament. See the part that I have underlined.
-
CORRECTION
The Page numbers I gave in the previous post are for the 1566 octavo edition of the Roman Catechism, whereas the URL was for the 1566 quarto edition.
So to start afresh with the references:
The 1566 octavo edition is here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nDU8AAAAcAAI (see pp.197-198)
The 1566 quarto edition is here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TPxbAAAAQAAJ (see pp.109-110)
The 1845 Rome edition is here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kWUuAAAAYAAe (see pp.109-110)
-
Thanks for posting that Cupertino. Your translation looks the same as others that I've seen.
Now, per your quote below, you said that the catechism says that BOD can save the unbaptized who dies by accident before getting baptized - but that is not at all what it says as I will elaborate.
Why ask that question when Rome as said that someone can be saved if they obtain baptism of desire when it is morally impossible for them to be baptized with water? The Catechism of the Council of Trent said that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water. All sedevacantist bishops that I know of accept this teaching. I am sorry if you reject it yourself.
Your translation of the catechism: for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness [of baptism to be granted to them], if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.
1) No where does the catechism say salvation will be granted - only that BOD would suffice for grace and the righteousness. "Grace and righteousness" is not salvation.
2) The catechism also makes repentance for a life badly spent an additional requirement for an unbaptized person to be placed in the state of grace and the righteousness. Not salvation. So per the catechism, one who is unbaptized must not only have the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism aka "desire", one must also repent for their life badly spent.
3)Some sudden accident means what it says - - - what it does *not* say is "accidental death". As much as folks read "accidental death" into it, it's not in there anywhere, that is not what it says. That is not what it means - if they meant to say "accidental death", then why didn't they? Are we to presume that they were incapable of their duties, incapable of saying exactly what they meant? Nowhere in Trent or it's Catechism will you find "accidental death".
If the sudden accident impedes ("impedes", per Webster's dictionary = Delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder.) once the obstruction has been cleared, that unbaptized person will need to be washed in the water of salvation not only to attain salvation from the water of salvation, but also to receive the other sacraments. It is called the water of salvation, not "the water of grace and righteousness." The two are not the same thing.
4) The catechism does not even guarantee or assure grace and righteousness, rather it says that "desire" + repentance" only "would suffice".
5) To conclude, I said Read what it says, not what you want it to say and you will see that it says no such thing. so hopefully it is now clear that no where does Trent or the Catechism of Trent teach that one can be saved if he dies by accident without the sacrament of Baptism.
-
Well I am reading MHFM book "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" and it seems like BOD is an interpretation of man, not God. The Council of Trent has been wrongly interpreted it seems.
Wrongly interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church? Well, this is what seemed to me unfortunate about Fr.Feeney, his disavowal of the Church's teaching authority, the consensus of her theologians, and, ironically, the visible membership in the Church he so vigorously defended as necessary, and rightly so.
In 1863, Bl.Pope Pius XI in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore stated,
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
There is also the matter of a 1911 Catechism of Pope St.Pius X and the 1949 letter from the Holy Office of 1949 under Pope Pius XII, though I'm aware Feeneyites have some explanation for the two of these, in terms of doubting their authenticity.
But more importantly, there simply is no precedent in the Church's Tradition for saying that "grace and righteousness" somehow still excludes salvation. For those who die in a state of grace are saved as surely as those who die without it are lost. The Angelic Doctor is plain in his equivocation of the two: "Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification."
Further, the Catechism of Trent states plainly that baptism is sometimes delayed in the case of adults, which is inexplicable on the Church's part if salvation is thereby not attained.
None of this means that any sort of desire suffices but, as Pope Pius XII taught, only one that is animated by perfect charity and illuminated by the supernatural light of faith, what St.Paul calls "faith working love", both supernatural virtues, not merely through one's natural means, or without divine action. The soul must seek His will and be ready to obey all that God requires. Some theologians have held that the faith that suffices for justification would be merely, from St.Paul, "that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him".
Others, following St.Thomas, hold that explicit knowledge of the mysteries of Faith relating to God's nature, like the Trinity and the Incarnation, is necessary for salvation, for the life and salvation of man is to know God, and no one can know God who holds a heretical opinion about Him. To the upright pagan, then, God would either send an Angel, or by an internal enlightenment of His own free action, confer the dispositions necessary for baptism and salvation. Still others, following St.Alphonsus, hold that the desire for baptism must needs be explicit, as in the case of catechumens.
I've read some Feeneyite publications, and it seems to me, what they most rage against is the novel idea that just about everyone will be saved, which is obviously false. But baptism of desire as such is taught by the Church, with her making no pronouncement that it has been applied in any individual case.
What seems plain to me is that no one can hold that baptism of desire is heretical. And in all probabilty at least catechumens and a few others, if indeed such sincere souls as described do exist, are saved through such extraordinary means of baptism God has provided, for He has bound salvation to the sacraments administered through ordinary means, but He is not Himself bound to them and remains free to confer those same graces that He gives us in water baptism through His own free action without it.
It is possible, though, to hold that nonetheless, no one is in practice saved by it, for God has never promised to do so, so long as one does not teach this as dogmatically certain. It is in holding to this sense, I believe, that Fr.Feeney was finally and thankfully reconciled to the Church and died in her communion, although that will be disputed by those of his followers who are sedevacantists, of course.
Everything said does not excuse our strict responsibility to evangelize every single soul in our power, and pray for those outside it, and always to presume that those dying without baptism are perishing, for we do not and cannot the hidden ways of God, and have no strict right to think that He will act in any particular case.
-
Stubborn,
Since I, and not Cupertino, was responsible for posting the extract from the Roman Catechism and providing an English translation, perhaps I can interject here.
Insofar as Cupertino’s remarks were in answer to the original post, I understood him to be saying that sedevacantist bishops hold to all that the Catechism teaches about baptism, including its reference to what has latterly been termed “baptism of desire”. However, I think that Cupertino’s own description of what the Catechism actually teaches on that subject was far too vague, to attract my support. Hence my contribution to the discussion.
It is true that, as an impediment to the reception of baptism by the unbaptised, the phrase which I translated as “some sudden accident” (repentinus aliquis casus) does not speak explicitly of “accidental death”. But the reason for this ought to be obvious: there was no need for the author to specify every possible kind of impediment, when, to cover them all, it was quite sufficient for him to use a general expression (the adjective “aliquis” [=some, any] being the mark of its generality). Thus, this phrase which I translated as “some sudden accident” is sufficiently broad in meaning to be INCLUSIVE of “accidental death”. Your argument that “accidental death” is excluded because it wasn’t specifically mentioned, is false. The doctrinal point being made in the text rests simply upon the fact of an impediment, and not upon what kind of impediment it might be.
As it is used in the quotation from the Catechism, I take the verb “impediat”, to refer to a permanent impediment, rather than to a temporary delay. Therefore, I agree that the catechumen, who is merely delayed, must proceed to completing his intention of receiving the sacrament of baptism, once the cause of delay is removed. But forgive me, I do find it faintly ridiculous that you quote from an ENGLISH dictionary (Webster’s, in this case) in order to prove what you think is the intended meaning of a word in the LATIN text. This is a typical ploy of the Dimonds. You can argue with me about the accuracy of my translation, but, in doing so, you should justify your case by reference at least to a reliable Latin-English dictionary.
Feeneyites should drop their anxieties: the text certainly does not mean that the unbaptised catechumen gets a free pass to heaven as compensation for simply falling off his bike!
-
Stubborn,
Since I, and not Cupertino, was responsible for posting the extract from the Roman Catechism and providing an English translation, perhaps I can interject here.
Ahh, sorry about that Sunbeam - thanks for posting the translation. By all means interject!
Insofar as Cupertino’s remarks were in answer to the original post, I understood him to be saying that sedevacantist bishops hold to all that the Catechism teaches about baptism, including its reference to what has latterly been termed “baptism of desire”. However, I think that Cupertino’s own description of what the Catechism actually teaches on that subject was far too vague, to attract my support. Hence my contribution to the discussion.
It is true that, as an impediment to the reception of baptism by the unbaptised, the phrase which I translated as “some sudden accident” (repentinus aliquis casus) does not speak explicitly of “accidental death”. But the reason for this ought to be obvious: there was no need for the author to specify every possible kind of impediment, when, to cover them all, it was quite sufficient for him to use a general expression (the adjective “aliquis” [=some, any] being the mark of its generality). Thus, this phrase which I translated as “some sudden accident” is sufficiently broad in meaning to be INCLUSIVE of “accidental death”. Your argument that “accidental death” is excluded because it wasn’t specifically mentioned, is false. The doctrinal point being made in the text rests simply upon the fact of an impediment, and not upon what kind of impediment it might be.
Well, one can suppose the statement from the catechism is inclusive of accidental death, but whoever will read what is written, they will have to agree that is not what it says. One can also suppose that grace and righteousness is salvation, however, that is also not the case.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not say that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water for a very good reason- - - - because:
If the the catechism were to teach such a thing, it would explicitly contradict the words of Our Lord "unless a man be born again of water........." This reason alone should make all the sense in the world and there should be no need to proceed further.
Supposing 1) "some sudden accident" really did mean *sudden death* - and supposing 2) the catechism actually teaches that one *can be* saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water 3) the catechism still cannot reward salvation to one certainly unbaptized because only the Judge, Jesus Christ, knows where that particular soul ends up - no one else, not the catechism, not the pope, not anyone can ever say where that particular unbaptized (and theoretical) soul went.
There is no canon, catechism or other human being on earth that could say where that unbaptized soul went - *this* is the reason Trent, in it's canons and catechism, never rewards salvation to one who is certainly unbaptized. Not once. Not ever. The farthest they ever go is to grant "grace and righteousness" to those unbaptized, which, unlike salvation, is often lost due to our own concupiscence and needs to be replenished through the sacrament of Penance. So yes, we can all agree the desire for baptism with sincere repentance can put a soul in the state of grace and righteousness, the debate arises when the words of Our Lord get contradicted by people who do not read what was written for our instruction, but instead read what they want it to say.
-
Stubborn,
You seem to be overlooking an essential element of the argument made in the Catechism.
You say “The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not say that one can be saved if he dies by accident without being baptized by water.” I might agree with you, if by “one” you meant “anyone”. But if you take your own advice and read what the Catechism says (and read it in its proper context), you will see that the case it discusses is not one that applies to “anyone”.
I posted only a small part of the Catechism’s teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism, but if you were to read the rest, you would see that in the broader context, a distinction is made between the baptism of children and the baptism of adults. In the latter case, the Catechism presents an argument to justify the Church’s ancient discipline of delaying the baptism of adult catechumens. Then comes the treatment of the case where an adult catechumen dies before having received baptism.
Hence, what you seem to be overlooking is the fact that the argument applies to an “adult catechumen”, and not to “anyone”.
“Adult” describes “those who are endowed with the use of reason”.
“Catechumen” is one of “those who are endowed with the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and [endowed with] repentance for a life badly spent”.
So what might be the fate of the catechumen who dies before baptism? Can he be saved? There are some mean-spirited people who would say “No”, and they would get out their well-thumbed bibles to prove themselves right. The Church, whose task it is to expound the mind of Our Blessed Lord, says “Yes”, and puts that answer in print, in the Catechism.
There can be no contradiction between this teaching, and the words of Our Blessed Lord to Nicodemus (John 3:5), and there isn’t one. Consistent with what Our Lord said to Nicodemus, is His command to the Church to teach and baptise all nations. The Church’s task is to teach and baptise the living. As for the dead, they are for the Lord to deal with: all we can now do is to offer prayer and supplication on their behalf. I am sure you realise that it is not for us to throw Our Lord's words back at Him, and to raise a dispute about what He Himself can and cannot do.
The parable of the labourers seems to be somewhat pertinent here (Matt. 20:1-16). The owner of the vineyard, who is undoubtedly to be taken as an image of our Lord, says: “It is my pleasure to give as much to this latecomer as to thee. Am I not free to use my money as I will? Must thou give me sour looks because I am generous?” (Knox translation).
If you are arguing that the acquisition of “grace and righteousness” is a not a sufficient condition for being saved from eternal damnation, then I think that you have a big theological problem on your hands.
One other thing: don’t get hung up on the word “accident”. This is just one possible translation of “casus”, which could have been translated, just as well, by any one of the following terms (and a few more besides): fall, misfortune, occurrence, occasion, event.
-
Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject. Thought it might be in place here.
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis).
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism ...
The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."
Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received.
In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire.
If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ."
-
So what might be the fate of the catechumen who dies before baptism? Can he be saved? There are some mean-spirited people who would say “No”, and they would get out their well-thumbed bibles to prove themselves right. The Church, whose task it is to expound the mind of Our Blessed Lord, says “Yes”, and puts that answer in print, in the Catechism.
Mean spirited? Catechumen or not, there is no definitive teaching in the Church that claims salvation is rewarded to anyone that dies unbaptized.
Grace is not salvation. Righteousness is not salvation. Grace and righteousness can be lost, salvation cannot. After you get out of confession, you have attained grace and righteousness - you have not attained salvation - and will not be saved unless you die in the state of grace and righteousness - this teaching the Church has always taught as regards baptized Catholics who die in the state of grace.
As regarding unbaptized persons - catechumen or not - the Church has never taught that those who die in the state of grace and righteousness without the sacrament of baptism will be saved. Never. Not one time. Not one canon ever. And again, the catechism in no way shape or form ever even implies salvation will be rewarded to the unbaptized - read what it says again - if that doesn't work then I suppose you simply cannot understad what is written, I dunno.
There can be no contradiction between this teaching, and the words of Our Blessed Lord to Nicodemus (John 3:5), and there isn’t one. Consistent with what Our Lord said to Nicodemus, is His command to the Church to teach and baptise all nations. The Church’s task is to teach and baptise the living. As for the dead, they are for the Lord to deal with: all we can now do is to offer prayer and supplication on their behalf. I am sure you realise that it is not for us to throw Our Lord's words back at Him, and to raise a dispute about what He Himself can and cannot do.
What? It is the living who are bound to be baptized while they live. Surly you understand once we die, our time stops and our eternity begins. Once we die, we get judged, if we lack anything, be it one jot or one tittle of the law, we do not get saved at all, we get damned.
How on earth does accepting the literal command of Our Lord equate to me throwing His words back at him? Do you suppose Our Lord made optional His own explicit Law? If so, where does the Church teach this? Those who ignore His words are the ones throwing them back at Him - no one can deny that.
And no, Our Lord is not bound by His own Law - but *we are*. Where else does Our Lord make specific and literal laws under pain of never seeing the Kingdom of God if broken that are also optional?
If you are arguing that the acquisition of “grace and righteousness” is a not a sufficient condition for being saved from eternal damnation, then I think that you have a big theological problem on your hands.
One other thing: don’t get hung up on the word “accident”. This is just one possible translation of “casus”, which could have been translated, just as well, by any one of the following terms (and a few more besides): fall, misfortune, occurrence, occasion, event.
I'm not hung up on the word accident - there is no such thing to God. After all, He's not out "feeding the birds of the air" while taking the life of one soon to be baptized before getting baptized.
I am saying that grace and righteousness are not only sufficient, they are necessary for salvation - that is what the Church teaches.
The Church does not teach grace and righteousness will suffice for salvation for anyone who dies unbaptized - disprove that fact if you think you can with authoritative Church teaching.
I've clearly explained what was written in the catechism because for whatever reason, folks believe it says something it certainly does not say - never has said and never can say.
-
And for good measure, here is Saint Thomas on the subject:-
Summa Theologica IIIa q. 68 a. 2
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said ( Jn. 3:5): “Unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” But those alone are saved who enter God’s kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: “We believe that no catechumen, though he die in
his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism.” But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the “faith that worketh by charity” (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (a. 1; q. 65, a. 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now
that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation
without Baptism. On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that “some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit.” Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, the sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways.
First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man
wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.”
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), “man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth
the heart.” Now a man who desires to be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” by Baptism, is regenerated in heart
though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that “the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the
letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.”
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now
this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that
martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment.
Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works,
which cannot be without “faith that worketh by charity”), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be
saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed” (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica.
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
Second and Revised Edition, 1920.
-
[Pardon the leapfrogging.]
Stubborn,
I put this syllogism to you:
MAJOR: As the Catechism teaches, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for grace and righteousness, if some sudden event should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.***
MINOR: As you admit, grace and righteousness are not only sufficient, they are necessary for salvation.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would provide them with what is sufficient and necessary for salvation, if some sudden event should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.
(***NOTE: For the sake of simplicity, I have removed my interpolation relating to the terms “grace” and “righteousness”, and for the Latin word ‘casus’ I have substituted ‘event’.)
-
[Pardon the leapfrogging.]
Stubborn,
I put this syllogism to you:
MAJOR: As the Catechism teaches, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for grace and righteousness, if some sudden event should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.***
MINOR: As you admit, grace and righteousness are not only sufficient, they are necessary for salvation.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would provide them with what is sufficient and necessary for salvation, if some sudden event should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.
Folks always have to make this leap *on their own* in order to reward salvation to the unbaptized because there is absolutely no definitive Church teaching to support this conclusion. This is because that is not what is.
Not even the catechism teaches this conclusion - because only God knows the fate of that theoretical and just person who died unbaptized.
There is no "sudden event" to God who leaves no room for chance or for fate - particularly in regards to our salvation.
-
Stubborn,
You state:
Folks always have to make this leap *on their own* in order to reward salvation to the unbaptized because there is absolutely no definitive Church teaching to support this conclusion.
Now I am not discussing what you suppose “folks” do: I am discussing the teaching of the Catechism (ie: The Roman Catechism first published in 1566). So let us try and stick to the point.
There’s no such thing as a “leap” in a syllogism.
If a syllogism is in correct form and its two premises are true, then its conclusion is true.
As to correct form, I believe that this is sufficiently evident, but if you disagree please point out where the form falls short.
As to the major premise, I have already shown that, in regard to the catechumen who is impeded from receiving baptism, the Catechism says,: “baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis futura sit ad gratiam et iustitiam” (=the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness).
As to the minor premise, you have already admitted “that grace and righteousness are not only sufficient, they are necessary for salvation”.
The conclusion is unavoidable, but you won't admit it.
So your statement above looks like an attempt to redefine the conclusion in order to prove that it is false.
If you think that the conclusion is equivalent to “folks rewarding salvation to the unbaptized”, then that is your assertion, but it isn’t mine.
To repeat. You state:
...there is absolutely no definitive Church teaching to support this conclusion.
Assuming that this statement should be read as an assertion on your part (rather than on the part of “folks”), I would point out that the Church’s teaching on ‘Baptism of Blood’ and ‘Baptism of Desire’ can be traced back over many centuries, and that (so far as I am aware) no general council of the Church has issued a canon condemning it.
The only condemnation of it, that I know of, comes from the likes of Peter Dimond and his ilk. Are we supposed to accept them as the new Magisterium?
Next, assuming that you use the expression “definitive Church teaching” to meant an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium, I would point out that not everything that is contained in the Catechism is covered by an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Does this mean that everything contained in the Catechism which is not covered by an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium is erroneous? Not at all. Or that we are free to reject it? Not at all.
The teaching of the Catechism on faith and morals is covered by the Ordinary Magisterium and it is backed up by the authority of the Roman Pontiff. We owe to the Ordinary Magisterium a religious submission of intellect and will. Therefore, I argue that whoever presumes to dismiss any part of that teaching, not only acts rashly, but sets himself up in the pretence of having an authority superior to that of the Roman Pontiff.
Furthermore, the teaching of the Catechism accords with the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas where (as I have shown in translation) it says:
...the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.
So he who presumes to dispute the teaching of the Catechism, also contends against Saint Thomas. What temerity!
-
Stubborn,
You state:
Folks always have to make this leap *on their own* in order to reward salvation to the unbaptized because there is absolutely no definitive Church teaching to support this conclusion.
Now I am not discussing what you suppose “folks” do: I am discussing the teaching of the Catechism (ie: The Roman Catechism first published in 1566). So let us try and stick to the point.
There’s no such thing as a “leap” in a syllogism.
If a syllogism is in correct form and its two premises are true, then its conclusion is true.
It is as I have already explained.
1)The Church teaches definitively the necessity of the Sacrament *for salvation*.
2)She also teaches definitively the need for repentance and contrition for grace and righteousness.
3) Nowhere does she teach definitively salvation without the Sacrament - to do so would contradict #1 as well as the words of Our Lord Himself.
4) Those who teach and/or believe that salvation can or will be rewarded without the Sacrament contradict #1 as well as the words of Our Lord Himself.
5) The Old Testament saints were full of grace and righteousness yet were not rewarded salvation when they died.................they were not baptized.
6) The catechism does not reward salvation to unbaptized catechumens, syllogism aside, only grace and righteousness (see #5).
So he who presumes to dispute the teaching of the Catechism, also contends against Saint Thomas. What temerity!
Well now, what about when St. Thomas presumed to contradict St. Augustine? St. Augustine even speaks about the theoretical sudden accident scenario. ...... is this not also temerity?
From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.
St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.
Funny how the Universal Ordinary Magisterium presume to dispute each other hey? - yet we are bound to believe as de fide their teachings? Which ones?
-
Stubborn,
Without providing any supporting references, you assert: “The Old Testament saints were full of grace and righteousness yet were not rewarded salvation when they died.................they were not baptized.”
Contrariwise, Pope Benedict XII (1334 – 1342) taught:
By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare:
that according to the common arrangement of God,
- souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ;
- also of the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them,
in whom nothing was to be purged, when they departed, nor will there be when they shall depart also in the future; or if then there was or there will be anything to be purged in these when after their death they have been purged;
- and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in that same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized, immediately after their death and that aforesaid purgation in those who were in need of a purgation of this kind, even before the resumption of their bodies and the general judgment after the ascension of our Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, into heaven,
have been, are, and will be in heaven, in the kingdom of heaven and in celestial paradise with Christ, united in the company of the holy angels, and after the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ have seen and see the divine essence by intuitive vision, and even face to face, with no mediating creature, serving in the capacity of an object seen, but divine essence immediately revealing itself plainly, clearly, and openly, to them, and seeing thus they enjoy the same divine essence, and also that from such vision and enjoyment their souls, which now have departed, are truly blessed and they have eternal life and rest;
- and also [the souls] of those who afterwards will depart, will see that same divine essence, and will enjoy it before the general judgment;
and that such vision of the divine essence and its enjoyment makes void the acts of faith and hope in them, inasmuch as faith and hope are proper theological virtues; and that after there has begun or will be such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment in these, the same vision and enjoyment without any interruption [intermission] or departure of the aforesaid vision and enjoyment exist continuously and will continue even up to the last judgment and from then even unto eternity.
Ref: Benedict XII. Edict “Benedictus Deus”, 29th January 1336.
(Denz. 530. “The Beatific Vision of God and the Last Days”) My formatting.
* * *
Me: “So he who presumes to dispute the teaching of the Catechism, also contends against Saint Thomas.”
You: “Well now, what about when St. Thomas presumed to contradict St. Augustine?”
= A non sequitur! I was alluding to the fact that, in the matter under discussion here, the teaching of Saint Thomas corresponded in substance with the teaching of Catechism. I say “in substance”, not “in authority”.
Furthermore, as regards the teaching authority of Saint Augustine, Pope Pius XI warned against elevating it above that of the Church:-
We would note, for the benefit of all, that the lavish praises bestowed on our Saint by the writers of antiquity are to be understood in a proper sense, and not – as some, who do not share the Catholic sense, have thought – as though the weight of Augustine's word were to be set ahead of the very authority of the teaching Church.”
Pius XI. Encyclical “Ad salutem”, 22nd April 1930, n.6.
Thus, it would not have been presumptious for Saint Thomas to contradict the substance of Saint Augustine's teaching, if he had legitimate grounds for doing so. In fact, in such circuмstances, Saint Thomas, as an approved theologian, would have had a duty to do it, but in disputing the teaching of Saint Augustine, he would not have been attacking the content or the authority of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals.
It is quite a different thing for laymen to be disputing the teaching of the Catechism.
* * *
You: “Funny how the Universal Ordinary Magisterium [sic] presume to dispute each other hey? - yet we are bound to believe as de fide their teachings?”
1) Neither Saint Augustine nor Saint Thomas equate to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
2) We are bound to take the teachings of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas as de fide only insofar as they correspond with the de fide teachings of the Church.
* * *
You: “St. Augustine even speaks about the theoretical sudden accident scenario.”
Or something like it...
Saint Augustine. City of God. Book XIII. Chap. 7.
OF THE DEATH WHICH THE UNBAPTIZED [1] SUFFER FOR THE CONFESSION OF CHRIST.
“For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,”[2] made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;”[3] and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”[4] And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”[5] For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He listeth, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this account should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the divine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.”
Footnotes
1. Literally, unregenerate.
2. John iii. 5.
3. Matt. x. 32.
4. Matt. xvi. 25.
5. Ps. cxvi. 15.
Ref: Philip Schaff, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. II St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, LL.D. (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Co., 1887).
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/2053
Sounds very much to me like Saint Augustine was teaching Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood after all!
-
Looks like formatting took a day off again - sorry.
Stubborn,
Without providing any supporting references, you assert: “The Old Testament saints were full of grace and righteousness yet were not rewarded salvation when they died.................they were not baptized.”
I obviously did not communicate my thoughts properly...........
"..He descended into hell, the third day He rose again......" The creed is enough of a supporting reference no? They (OT saints) died with grace and righteousness but were not rewarded salvation when they died. There is no need to dispute where they are now, certainly in heaven.
Contrariwise, Pope Benedict XII (1334 – 1342) taught:
By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare:
that according to the common arrangement of God,
- souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ;
- also of the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them...
Again, Pope Benedict XII declares the necessity of the Sacrament - this was 700 years ago.
Me: “So he who presumes to dispute the teaching of the Catechism, also contends against Saint Thomas.”
You: “Well now, what about when St. Thomas presumed to contradict St. Augustine?”
= A non sequitur! I was alluding to the fact that, in the matter under discussion here, the teaching of Saint Thomas corresponded in substance with the teaching of Catechism. I say “in substance”, not “in authority”.
I do not agree that it is A non sequitur. IF we are still dealing with a syllogism, then St. Augustine + Pope Benedict XII = Sacramental Baptism necessary. . . . . . . . which in turn means St. Thomas contradict St. Augustine/Pope Benedict XII.
Again, nowhere does the catechism teach salvation without the sacrament, only grace and righteousness are possible, which agrees with St. Augustine/Pope Benedict XII. All these equate to St. Thomas as being wrong on this particular subject, not right. Use your syllogism and it helps clear things up nicely!
Saint Augustine. City of God. Book XIII. Chap. 7.
OF THE DEATH WHICH THE UNBAPTIZED [1] SUFFER FOR THE CONFESSION OF CHRIST.
“For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,”[2] made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;”[3] and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”[4] And this explains the verse, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”[5] For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out, have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He listeth, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this account should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the divine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.”
Footnotes
1. Literally, unregenerate.
2. John iii. 5.
3. Matt. x. 32.
4. Matt. xvi. 25.
5. Ps. cxvi. 15.
Ref: Philip Schaff, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. II St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, ed. Philip Schaff, LL.D. (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Co., 1887).
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/2053
Sounds very much to me like Saint Augustine was teaching Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood after all!
Well, you can post your quote from St. Augustine supporting BOD and I'll post mine from St. Augustine - which came after yours - condemning it - certainly sounds very much like he was teaching the necessity of the Sacrament....... From St. Augustine's book: "Retractions" - 400: Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.‘ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.
St. Augustine, 416: How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God‘s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! …For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.
The point of this is that Saints and Doctors, as much as we need them and as much good as they do for the Church, can and do contradict each other - even themselves on in this instance.
BTW, if you read up on St. Augustine's book Retractions (Retractiones) you'll find it named appropriately - this book was corrections or "retractions" of things he previously taught.
-
Stubborn,
It looks like we are not going to be in agreement on this any time soon.
As there are other things now demanding my attention I am not going to pursue this much further for the present.
But I may return to the topic later, because I think it important to expose what is at the root of the divergent views about it.
In any case, we have moved away from the question raised in the OP, so it might be better to start a fresh thread in the New Year.
Meanwhile, here is something of an interim summary:
In my view, the difference between us boils down to whether there is provision within the Deposit of Faith for what are termed “Baptism of Blood” and “Baptism of Desire”.
You deny.
I affirm.
My position is based upon these facts:
(a) BOB/BOD was included in the instruction that I received prior to reception into the Church (before Vatican II).
(b) There is wealth of Church-approved evidence which clearly supports belief in BOB/BOD, such that they appear to qualify as teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
(c) The Church has never issued a condemnation against the teaching of BOB/BOD.
In holding this position, I do not deny the necessity of Baptism in the ordinary course of events, and I do not consider Baptism to be optional.
At the same time, since Saint John draws his Gospel towards a close with the advice: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (20:30), I do not presume to think that what he recorded at 3:15 is necessarily the limit of what our Lord taught the Apostles about the means of salvation. I deny that our unaided intellects are sufficient for discovering the meaning of Holy Scripture. I hold that the right and duty to explain the meaning of Holy Scripture belong to the Church’s Magisterium
With particular reference to the relevant teaching found in the Roman Catechism, my position is this:
I believe that our Lord has revealed Himself as being merciful towards those who, with a contrite heart, have faith in Him and do all that they can to conform to His will (as surely was the case with the Saints of the Old Testament). Therefore, I am more willing to believe than to deny, that He would not condemn to eternal punishment the catechumen whose desire to receive baptism is frustrated by events that are outside of his control. Everything that I have come across in approved catechisms has reinforced my view on this.
I will leave it to you to summarise the basis of your belief in the matter, and to say who has taught it to you.
And now I will pause and wish you, and whoever else might read this, all the blessings of a Holy Christmas.
(http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/nativity21.jpg?w=300&h=300)
-
Sunbeam,
I agree it best to start a fresh thread and I'll thank you upfront for the civil and enjoyable debate you've presented on this subject!
Please watch about the first minute and a half to see what I consider the premo example of a BOD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6LHWyaeEHY This video perfectly exemplifies God's Mercy being personally fulfilled.
To me, the real issue is not BOD per se, the real issue is the neglect and/or misunderstanding of Divine Providence on the part of those who believe in BODVUAD (BOD Via the Unforeseen Accidental Death) in the matter.
So to that end is why I posted the above video, namely, because God will get the water to whoever certainly desires it - that is how God Provides. That is what the Church has always taught. That is what Scripture has always taught. I could go on but for the sake of brevity here, I won't go on about that, I may start a thread on Divine Providence under the General section.
Make no mistake about it, under the usual conditions, in order for one who desires baptism to be saved via BOD, one must also enjoy dieing unbaptized by accident, suddenly or in some other unexpected manner. (IOW, the BOD person will die the same way as the rest of us baptized folks.)
If that's not enough, they must also die in such a fashion which would make it impossible to receive the Sacrament- this not only directly contradicts Divine Providence, it also contradicts Scripture For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.. . . . and . . . . Watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come. to name only two.
I was taught to always be ready precisely because if we die and we're not ready, we go to hell forever. BOD makes this concern a non issue for those who *should* be most concerned.
BOD conveniently settles the inner hidden fear God put in us all that we are all born with - the fear of not knowing when or how we'll die. The Church teaches the above scripture means that we all are supposed to be ever expecting it, and ever watchful. There are no proviso's to anyone - BOD makes an exception only for those who should be most diligent of all expecting death and watchful for it.
In a nutshell, BOD contradicts things the Church has always taught. Why saints and others believe otherwise I cannot say, but when it comes right down to it, that is the truth of the matter.
For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." . . . . and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.
So there it is in a nutshell. My issues with BOD lie mainly in the fact that it outright contradicts not just some, but all Scriptural and De fide teachings while claiming it does not. It is this claim that BOD Catholics support in favor over that which certainly is De fide.
At any rate, I've learned this stuff some from Fr. Feeney, some from Fr. Wathen, some from various trad priests as well as books, papal bulls, etc. - but I'd have to say I learned most by relating it all back and confirming with my own eyes by watching the Church actually fall apart by permitting BOD to be allowed to reach it's ultimate fulfillment - universal salvation.
And a Blessed and Holy Christmas to you as well!
-
I find it funny when someone quotes the Catechism of the Council of Trent in an attempt to defend "baptism of desire" and deny the absolute necessity of water Baptism. They are absolute liars and highly dishonest individuals indeed.
They quote the one sentence that was quoted here (“should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for an adult to receive baptism, his intention and determination to receive baptism will avail him to grace and righteousness.”) but find it convenient to leave out these clear-cut statements:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
Funny right? Here's more, "for good measure":
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
-
Have I spotted a Dimond Doppelgänger?
* * *
To the point: We have receive the doctrine, referred to as “Baptism of Desire”, from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church. He who denies what comes from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church, is the one who espouses heresy.
-
Have I spotted a Dimond Doppelgänger?
* * *
To the point: We have receive the doctrine, referred to as “Baptism of Desire”, from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church. He who denies what comes from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church, is the one who espouses heresy.
An Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. 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 [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. 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 of 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.”
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
-
It is Heresy to deny BOB and BOD they have always been believed.
You feeneyites are not theologians and you do not understand the meaning of the sentences(which are more specific in Latin) that you quote, also everyone at Trent believed in BOD and BOB. Father Feeney was Excuмmunicated by Cadinal Ottiavani under Pope Pius XII because of his denial of BOD and BOB and only had the Excommunication lifted by Pope Paul VI(which Sede's wouldn't see as valid anyway) in an act of ecuмanism which in and of itself I believe would nullify the lifting of said excom since Excommunications are not vindicative penalties they are medicinal and the offender is supposed to repent before the penalty is lifted.
Baptism of Desire is a Baptism, this is why we do not Baptise Catecuмens straight away but we do Baptise infants straight away. Baptism of Blood is also a valid Baptism the quotes from Trent that get quoted refering to water, were not stated against these Baptisms they were stated against some idiots who were teaching that you could baptise someone with wine or beer.
Anyhow, here are the two passages from the Code of Canon Law with Commentary from 1918. This Code was begun by Pope St. Pius X and finished and promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.
-
A few points, easy to miss:
1) "Baptism" of desire is not a sacrament.
2) "Baptism" of desire means different things to different people, and as such, eludes definition.
3) The principle and necessary component for any "baptism" of desire to be effective is perfect contrition, for without perfect contrition, and in the absence of the Sacrament of Baptism, there can be no salvation.
4) If it were to be defined (and authoritative definitions are extremely rare these days!) "baptism" of desire would be framed in the context of a special case of perfect contrition, and therefore would be something that the recipient could lose ~ that is, one could have it one moment, and lose it the next, which is problematic for definitive authority to clarify. One never loses the mark of Sacramental Baptism.
5) The Sacrament of Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that lasts for all eternity, but any "baptism of desire" would leave no such mark, and therefore calling it "baptism" of desire leads to misunderstanding, because it is not baptism, but merely a phrase popularly used to describe a desire FOR baptism.
6) There is no argument against desire, per se, among those who question the popular claim of "baptism" of desire. The problem isn't the use of the word, "desire," but rather the use of the word "baptism," because it isn't Baptism, at all. It is perfect contrition, which is a wonderful thing, something we ought to all strive to achieve at all times, but it is not a sacrament.
7) "Baptism" of desire is not dogma. It has never been defined, nor will it ever likely be defined, for the reasons above, and perhaps others. Therefore, questioning it cannot be a "heresy," and the subject is open to debate.
-
Neil Obstat,
I wouldn’t quarrel with the general drift of the seven points that you have just made.
But there two of them that, I think, call for comment:
"Baptism" of desire means different things to different people, and as such, eludes definition.
That may be so in general, but what “Baptism of Desire” means to “different people” is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the concept underlying the words, as it is understood and taught by the Church.
Questioning [Baptism of Desire] cannot be a "heresy," and the subject is open to debate.
If, as I understand to be the case, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire (baptismus flaminis) is from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church then it must be accepted with Divine and Catholic Faith. (The foregoing scans, kindly provided by LordPhan, appear to support this understanding.)
Hence, denial of the said doctrine of the Church would seem to constitute heresy.
-
Neil Obstat,
I wouldn’t quarrel with the general drift of the seven points that you have just made.
But there two of them that, I think, call for comment:
"Baptism" of desire means different things to different people, and as such, eludes definition.
That may be so in general, but what “Baptism of Desire” means to “different people” is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the concept underlying the words, as it is understood and taught by the Church.
Questioning [Baptism of Desire] cannot be a "heresy," and the subject is open to debate.
If, as I understand to be the case, the doctrine of Baptism of Desire (baptismus flaminis) is from the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church then it must be accepted with Divine and Catholic Faith. (The foregoing scans, kindly provided by LordPhan, appear to support this understanding.)
Hence, denial of the said doctrine of the Church would seem to constitute heresy.
Agreed - Well stated
-
Have I spotted a Dimond Doppelgänger?
Hence, denial of the said doctrine of the Church would seem to constitute heresy.
Oh so the Catechism of Trent is heretical then?
It is Heresy to deny BOB and BOD they have always been believed.
Haha. I ask the same to you. Is the Catechism heretical?
You feeneyites are not theologians and you do not understand the meaning of the sentences(which are more specific in Latin) that you quote,
Oh, and you are a theologian?
also everyone at Trent believed in BOD and BOB.
Oh really?
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Father Feeney was Excuмmunicated by Cadinal Ottiavani under Pope Pius XII because of his denial of BOD and BOB and only had the Excommunication lifted by Pope Paul VI(which Sede's wouldn't see as valid anyway) in an act of ecuмanism which in and of itself I believe would nullify the lifting of said excom since Excommunications are not vindicative penalties they are medicinal and the offender is supposed to repent before the penalty is lifted.
You're grasping at straws with this, and you reveal your ignorance on the matter.
1- Feeney wasn't excommunicated by Ottaviani
2- His "excommunication" had nothing to do with matters of doctrine, it was because he refused to go to Rome because they ignored the law and didn't present the reasons for his summons
3- All the "clergymen" were hetretics anyways by the time of Feeney. He wrote a letter to all the bishops at the time asking about the salvation dogma and got only 3 positive responses.
4- More importantly, the case of Father Feeney had nothing to do with the other two "baptisms", it was about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla sallus. The "baptisms" were not the subject of debate, it was whether you could be saved only as a Catholic or not, which all the "clergymen" at the time didn't believe in anymore!
So you (and anyone else) bringing up the Feeney case just shows how dishonest you are.
-
Prosologion asks:
Is the Catechism heretical?
Answer: Not at all, but Prosologion’s interpretation of the Catechism is.
And before he comes back with a smart answer, might I suggest that he would do well to read and digest the whole of this thread, especially with reference to what the Roman Catechism actually teaches about the subject at hand.
-
Prosologion asks:
Is the Catechism heretical?
Answer: Not at all, but Prosologion’s interpretation of the Catechism is.
And before he comes back with a smart answer, might I suggest that he would do well to read and digest the whole of this thread, especially with reference to what the Roman Catechism actually teaches about the subject at hand.
I already read this whole thread.
The statements i presented from the Catechism are clear for anyone with a semblance of honesty and good will.
"My interpretation"? Yeah, the old "misinterpretation" nonsense. Dishonest people and liars love to cling to the "misinterpretation" stuff.
Everything is ambiguous and no one can know what a Catechism intended for the masses says. In order to "understand" the Catechism, you need a theologian to hold your hand and give you the "correct" interpretation. You need "another interpretation" because what the catechism says, as it stands, doesn't fit with your heretical beliefs.
-
Have I spotted a Dimond Doppelgänger?
Hence, denial of the said doctrine of the Church would seem to constitute heresy.
Oh so the Catechism of Trent is heretical then?
It is Heresy to deny BOB and BOD they have always been believed.
Haha. I ask the same to you. Is the Catechism heretical?
You feeneyites are not theologians and you do not understand the meaning of the sentences(which are more specific in Latin) that you quote,
Oh, and you are a theologian?
also everyone at Trent believed in BOD and BOB.
Oh really?
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Father Feeney was Excuмmunicated by Cadinal Ottiavani under Pope Pius XII because of his denial of BOD and BOB and only had the Excommunication lifted by Pope Paul VI(which Sede's wouldn't see as valid anyway) in an act of ecuмanism which in and of itself I believe would nullify the lifting of said excom since Excommunications are not vindicative penalties they are medicinal and the offender is supposed to repent before the penalty is lifted.
You're grasping at straws with this, and you reveal your ignorance on the matter.
1- Feeney wasn't excommunicated by Ottaviani
2- His "excommunication" had nothing to do with matters of doctrine, it was because he refused to go to Rome because they ignored the law and didn't present the reasons for his summons
3- All the "clergymen" were hetretics anyways by the time of Feeney. He wrote a letter to all the bishops at the time asking about the salvation dogma and got only 3 positive responses.
4- More importantly, the case of Father Feeney had nothing to do with the other two "baptisms", it was about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla sallus. The "baptisms" were not the subject of debate, it was whether you could be saved only as a Catholic or not, which all the "clergymen" at the time didn't believe in anymore!
So you (and anyone else) bringing up the Feeney case just shows how dishonest you are.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches Baptism of Desire in regards to Catechumens in its explanation of why Catechumens do not have to immediately be baptised.
I would like to point out to the Heretic Feeneyites that the first law of the Church is the salvation of souls. This is why infants are baptised immediately. Now if there were no baptism of desire(Which is taught by the Church as true throughout history the denial of which is heresy) then it would be a mortal sin for all the previous Popes and Clerics to delay baptism for all the Catechumens.
So to be a Feeneyite is to accuse every cleric in the history of the Church of mortal sin that they have not repented of.
If one of you attends an SSPX chapel and you promote this heretical belief in public you will be kicked out. The Fellayites may change this I neither know nor care, but those who follow Bishop Williamson will rebuke you a couple times and then remove you from the flock!
-
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Infant Baptism: It's Necessity
That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers.
Besides, it is not to be supposed that Christ the Lord would have withheld the Sacrament and grace of Baptism from children, of whom He said: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such; ° whom also He embraced, upon whom He imposed hands, to whom He gave His blessing.
Moreover, when we read that an entire family was baptised by Paul, it is sufficiently obvious that the children of the family must also have been cleansed in the saving font.
Circuмcision, too, which was a figure of Baptism, affords strong argument in proof of this practice. That children were circuмcised on the eighth day is universally known. If then circuмcision, made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, was profitable to children, it is clear that Baptism, which is the circuмcision of Christ, not made by hand, is also profitable to them.
Finally, as the Apostle teaches, if by one man's offence death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by Baptism.
Pastors, therefore, should inculcate the absolute necessity of administering Baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their tender minds to piety by education in the Christian religion. For according to these admirable words of the wise man: A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Infants Receive The Graces Of Baptism
It may not be doubted that in Baptism infants receive the mysterious gifts of faith. Not that they believe with the assent of the mind, but they are established in the faith of their parents, if the parents profess the true faith; if not--to use the words of St. Augustine--then in that of the universal society of the saints; for they are rightly said to be presented for Baptism by all those to whom their initiation in that sacred rite is a source of joy, and by whose charity they are united to the communion of the Holy Ghost.
Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.
Baptism Of Adults
With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.
They Should Not Delay Their Baptism Unduly
If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism. Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.
They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.
Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.
-
Have I spotted a Dimond Doppelgänger?
Hence, denial of the said doctrine of the Church would seem to constitute heresy.
Oh so the Catechism of Trent is heretical then?
It is Heresy to deny BOB and BOD they have always been believed.
Haha. I ask the same to you. Is the Catechism heretical?
You feeneyites are not theologians and you do not understand the meaning of the sentences(which are more specific in Latin) that you quote,
Oh, and you are a theologian?
also everyone at Trent believed in BOD and BOB.
Oh really?
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Father Feeney was Excuмmunicated by Cadinal Ottiavani under Pope Pius XII because of his denial of BOD and BOB and only had the Excommunication lifted by Pope Paul VI(which Sede's wouldn't see as valid anyway) in an act of ecuмanism which in and of itself I believe would nullify the lifting of said excom since Excommunications are not vindicative penalties they are medicinal and the offender is supposed to repent before the penalty is lifted.
You're grasping at straws with this, and you reveal your ignorance on the matter.
1- Feeney wasn't excommunicated by Ottaviani
2- His "excommunication" had nothing to do with matters of doctrine, it was because he refused to go to Rome because they ignored the law and didn't present the reasons for his summons
3- All the "clergymen" were hetretics anyways by the time of Feeney. He wrote a letter to all the bishops at the time asking about the salvation dogma and got only 3 positive responses.
4- More importantly, the case of Father Feeney had nothing to do with the other two "baptisms", it was about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla sallus. The "baptisms" were not the subject of debate, it was whether you could be saved only as a Catholic or not, which all the "clergymen" at the time didn't believe in anymore!
So you (and anyone else) bringing up the Feeney case just shows how dishonest you are.
I would ask that this person be banned, he has just accused Pope Pius XII of heresy, aswell as the good Cardinals and Priests prior to Vatican II.
By the way, Father Feeney's condemnation contrary to what you say had nothing to do with "Outside the Church there is no salvation" that is a lie, it was because he denied that the Catechumens were members of the Church through Baptism of Desire. You have been lied to and are then spreading the lie hopefully for your sake unknowingly.
-
Prosologion joined today saying:
I find it funny when someone quotes the Catechism of the Council of Trent in an attempt to defend "baptism of desire" and deny the absolute necessity of water Baptism. They are absolute liars and highly dishonest individuals indeed.
Prosologion later said:
The statements i presented from the Catechism are clear for anyone with a semblance of honesty and good will.
Prosologion then said:
Everything is ambiguous and no one can know what a Catechism intended for the masses says.
Prosologion left today saying:
This is nothing but a waste of time.
Indeed!