Author Topic: The Catechumen  (Read 1229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12434
  • Reputation: +6448/-1028
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Catechumen
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2017, 10:18:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If that it correct, then it would have been defined by the Church as such by now and would have been called the sacrament of baptism by desire.

    Besides, I have only met one person in my life that truly limited BOD to the catechumen. The chances of finding one who believes BOD of the catechumen exactly as you detail are slim and none. This is like debating over how many angels fit on top of a pin head.

    I just explained why the Church cannot define BoD, nor would any hypothetical definition refer to it as "the sacrament of baptism by desire".

    Yes, it is true that the number of BoD proponents who do not in their articulation of BoD slip into one heresy or another can probably be counted on your fingers.  But the point is that the position CAN be held without heresy, and people would not be heretics for believing in a BoD per se, but rather for the other actual heresies they have embraced.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #16 on: November 22, 2017, 10:19:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The proposition of untimely deaths, unforeseen accidents are by products of the school of Molinism. In the school of Molinism, God is a spectator in the universe basically waiting to see if His graces are made efficacious or not by the individuals free will, therefore the untimely death, unforeseen accidents... I understand this position has not been condemned, however the natural trajectory ends up in Pelagianism, where we are today.

    You're absolutely right.  Molinism and BoD have led to the modern Pelagianism.


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1474
    • Reputation: +853/-333
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #17 on: November 22, 2017, 10:20:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The only way for BOD to really exist is for God to positively will for people to die before receiving the sacrament. We can only speculate why:

    The person would have ended in hell later in life (God foreknew that the person was not of the predestined) and God had mercy on him, as sacramentally baptized Catholics suffer the greatest torments of all humanity in hell.

    Receiving baptism of desire sends a person to the higher reaches of hell of the least torments, almost like a bad limbo of the patriarchs. There are different degrees of torments in Hell.

    Note the two extremes of Hell, the worst torments for baptized Catholics and the least could be like a bad Limbo of the Patriarchs.


    From Mystical City of God , by Sister Mary of Agreda.

    537. Seeing him (Judas) thus beside himself Lucifer inspired him with the thought of hunting up the priests, returning to them the money and confessing his sin. This Judas hastened to do, and he loudly shouted at them those words: "I have sinned, betraying innocent blood!" (Matth. 27, 4). But they, not less hardened, answered that he should have seen to that before. The intention of the demon was to hinder the death of Christ if possible, for reasons already given and yet to be given (No. 419). This repulse of the priests, so full of impious cruelty, took away all hope from Judas and he persuaded himself that it was impossible to hinder the death of his Master. So thought also the demon, although later on he made more efforts to forestall it through Pilate. But as Judas could be of no more use to him for his purpose, he augmented his distress and despair, persuading him that in order to avoid severer punishments he must end his life. Judas yielded to this terrible deceit, and rushing forth from the city, hung himself on a dried-out figtree (Matth. 27, 5). Thus he that was the murderer of his Creator, became also his own murderer. This happened on Friday at twelve o'clock, three hours before our Savior died. It was not becoming that his death and the consummation of our Redemption should coincide too closely with the execrable end of the traitorous disciple, who hated him with fiercest malice.

    538. The demons at once took possession of the soul of Judas and brought it down to hell. His entrails burst from the body hanging upon the tree (Acts 1, 18). All that saw this stupendous pimishment of the perfidious and malicious disciple for his treason, were filled with astonishment and dread. The body remained hanging by the neck for three days, exposed to the view of the public. During that time the Jews attempted to take it down f rom the tree and to bury it in secret, for it was a sight apt to cause great confusion to the pharisees and priests, who could not refute such a testimony of his wickedness. But no efforts of theirs sufficed to drag or separate the body from its position on the tree until three days had passed, when, according to the dispensation of divine justice, the demons themselves snatched the body from the tree and brought it to his soul, in order that both might suffer eternal punishment in the profoundest abyss of hell. Since what I have been made to know of the pains and chastisements of Judas, is worthy of fear-inspiring attention, I will according to command reveal what has been shown me concerning it. Among the obscure caverns of the infernal prisons was a very large one, arranged for more horrible chastisements than the others, and which was still unoccupied; for the demons had been unable to cast any soul into it, although their cruelty had induced them to attempt it many times from the time of Cain unto that day. All hell had remained astonished at the failure of these attempts, being entirely ignorant of the mystery, until the arrival of the soul of Judas, which they readily succeeded in hurling and burying in this prison never before occupied by any of the damned. The secret of it was, that this cavern of greater torments and fiercer fires of hell, from the creation of the world, had been destined for those, who, after having received Baptism, would damn themselves by the neglect of the Sacraments, the doctrines, the Passion and Death of the Savior, and the intercession of his most holy Mother. As Judas had been the first one who had so signally participated in these blessings, and as he had so fearfully misused them, he was also the first to suffer the torments of this place, prepared for him and his imitators and followers.

    539. This mystery I was commanded to reveal more particularly for a dreadful warning to all Christians, and especially to the priests, prelates and religious, who are accustomed to treat with more familiarity the body and blood of Christ our Lord, and who, by their office and state are his closer friends. In order to avoid blame I would like to find words and expressions sufficiently strong to make an impression on our unfeeling obduracy, so that we all may take a salutary warning and be filled with the fear of the punishments awaiting all bad Christians according to the station each one of us occupies. The demons torment Judas with inexpressible cruelty, because he persisted in the betrayal of his Master, by whose Passion and Death they were vanquished and despoiled of the possession of the world. The wrath which they had conceived against the Savior and his blessed Mother, they wreck, as far as is allowed them, on all those who imitate the traitorous disciple and who follow him in his contempt of the evangelical law, of the Sacraments and of the fruits of the Redemption. And in this the demons are but executing just punishment on those members of the mystical body of Christ, who have severed their connection with its head Christ, and who have voluntarily drifted away and delivered themselves over to the accursed hate and implacable fury of his enemies. As the instruments of divine justice they chastise the redeemed for their ingratitude toward their Redeemer. Let the children of the Church consider well this truth, for it cannot fail to move their hearts and induce them to evade such a lamentable fate.

    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #18 on: November 22, 2017, 10:31:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The only way for BOD to really exist is for God to positively will for people to die before receiving the sacrament. We can only speculate why:

    The person would have ended in hell later in life (God foreknew that the person was not of the predestined) and God had mercy on him, as sacramentally baptized Catholics suffer the greatest torments of all humanity in hell.

    Receiving baptism of desire sends a person to the higher reaches of hell of the least torments, almost like a bad limbo of the patriarchs. There are different degrees of torments in Hell.

    Note the two extremes of Hell, the worst torments for baptized Catholics and the least could be like a bad Limbo of the Patriarchs.

    Yes, indeed.  I pointed this out to LoT once, that God must positively will for people to be saved via BoD rather than by receiving the Sacrament.  LoT conceded this.  So I asked him why God would will that.  He responded something about how God must want them to receive some temporal punishment due to sin in Purgatory (pushing that faulty St. Alphonsus theory).

    And, yes, the emotional aversion people have to "nice people" or "sincere people" not being saved is that they would go to hell -- and they have a very monolithic idea of hell where everybody is tossed indiscriminately into a burning furnace, with a kindly old Jewish grandmother who gave her life for her children right next to Joe Stalin, suffering the same torments.  But one of the EENS definitions points out that the torments are of varying degrees.  And I too believe that there are many in hell who suffer very little.  And I believe that a BoD would remit a great deal of the suffering they would experience, while a BoB would eliminate nearly all of it ... putting people into a near-limbo state.  But the superntural gift of the beatific vision is owed to no one; it is above our nature and is not even required for our perfect natural happiness.  Beatific vision is a free gift of God and He gives it to whomever He chooses.

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1697
    • Reputation: +692/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #19 on: November 22, 2017, 10:38:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Those theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine who speak of an in voto reception of the Sacrament.
    De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: “But without doubt it must be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when one dies without Baptism of water not out of contempt but out of necessity... For it is expressly said in Ezechiel: If the wicked shall do penance from his sins, I will no more remember his iniquities...Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

    Baptism in water is the Sacrament correct? Here St. Robert, in his formula, is saying that true conversion supplies for the Sacrament, therefore making the Sacrament not necessary. It's true that he said it's necessary in re vel in voto later on, but he contradicted himself earlier when he denied the necessity of it.
    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


    Offline Motorede

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +104/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #20 on: November 22, 2017, 12:09:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why did the Church insist on catechumens receiving instruction before the sacrament?  Why not baptize as soon as they have expressed a desire to submit to the Church’s doctrine?  It seems to me to be a tacit admission that a catechumen is already under the Church’s protection.  If I were a catechumen wouldn’t I have a good case to argue that it is an injustice to risk my eternal salvation in order to prove my good faith?  What percentage of catechumens fall away before baptism and what percentage fall after?  My guess is that the greater number fall after.  So why not baptize after a simple profession of faith?  That certainly would have resulted in more souls being saved during times of persecution.  How would we condemn a catechumen for having a friend baptize him before the instruction?  There seems to be a conflict between the good of the individual and the good of the society as a whole there and I don’t see how that could be.
    Clemens: I would argue that all of the sacraments are contracts, in the sense that God promises to give me what I want  if I promise to do/believe what He requires. But how can I say that I believe/accept the Faith if  I don't know the Faith? Hence the instruction period. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #21 on: November 22, 2017, 12:14:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here St. Robert, in his formula, is saying that true conversion supplies for the Sacrament, therefore making the Sacrament not necessary. It's true that he said it's necessary in re vel in voto later on, but he contradicted himself earlier when he denied the necessity of it.

    No, it's not a contradiction.  He's saying that the Sacrament is necessary in voto ... like the way Trent says that Confession is necessary saltem in voto.  I don't agree, but the way he articulates it clearly avoids heresy.

    Offline Motorede

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 139
    • Reputation: +104/-31
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #22 on: November 22, 2017, 12:27:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, indeed.  I pointed this out to LoT once, that God must positively will for people to be saved via BoD rather than by receiving the Sacrament.  LoT conceded this.  So I asked him why God would will that.  He responded something about how God must want them to receive some temporal punishment due to sin in Purgatory (pushing that faulty St. Alphonsus theory).

    And, yes, the emotional aversion people have to "nice people" or "sincere people" not being saved is that they would go to hell -- and they have a very monolithic idea of hell where everybody is tossed indiscriminately into a burning furnace, with a kindly old Jewish grandmother who gave her life for her children right next to Joe Stalin, suffering the same torments.  But one of the EENS definitions points out that the torments are of varying degrees.  And I too believe that there are many in hell who suffer very little.  And I believe that a BoD would remit a great deal of the suffering they would experience, while a BoB would eliminate nearly all of it ... putting people into a near-limbo state.  But the superntural gift of the beatific vision is owed to no one; it is above our nature and is not even required for our perfect natural happiness.  Beatific vision is a free gift of God and He gives it to whomever He chooses.
    And this^ makes me remember Father Wathen's chilling observation that "one doesn't go to hell because he's so bad, he just doesn't go to heaven because he's not good enough". 


    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1697
    • Reputation: +692/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #23 on: November 22, 2017, 12:42:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, it's not a contradiction.  He's saying that the Sacrament is necessary in voto ... like the way Trent says that Confession is necessary saltem in voto.  I don't agree, but the way he articulates it clearly avoids heresy.
    So when he says that true conversion supplies for the Sacrament, you don't see that as meaning "in lieu of"? As in, if the Sacrament cannot be had, true conversion will suffice. Not to mention the error that some "necessity" may prevent the reception of the Sacrament.
    The brings me to another point. What about the others who clearly claimed that the Sacrament is not necessary and it's effects may be attained through Baptism of Blood or Desire, or the teaching that Infants don't need Baptism? You seem to be quite afraid to call this error what it is. Wouldn't you agree that the necessity of infant Baptism had been defined way before some taught that it isn't necessary? Wouldn't you agree that saying that the temporal punishment is not taken away clearly indicates it is not the Sacrament which is received, even in voto, thereby making the Sacrament not necessary?
    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12434
    • Reputation: +6448/-1028
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #24 on: November 22, 2017, 12:59:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So when he says that true conversion supplies for the Sacrament, you don't see that as meaning "in lieu of"? As in, if the Sacrament cannot be had, true conversion will suffice. Not to mention the error that some "necessity" may prevent the reception of the Sacrament.
    The brings me to another point. What about the others who clearly claimed that the Sacrament is not necessary and it's effects may be attained through Baptism of Blood or Desire, or the teaching that Infants don't need Baptism? You seem to be quite afraid to call this error what it is. Wouldn't you agree that the necessity of infant Baptism had been defined way before some taught that it isn't necessary? Wouldn't you agree that saying that the temporal punishment is not taken away clearly indicates it is not the Sacrament which is received, even in voto, thereby making the Sacrament not necessary?

    St. Robert says that true conversion supplies for the Baptism OF WATER.  He's distinguishing it from Baptism of Desire.  If you believe in BoD in the first place, then it's possible that a necessity might prevent the reception of the Sacrament in re.  That simply cannot be used as a premise or argument in favor of BoD.

    Those who say that the Sacrament is not necessary or that infant Baptism is not necessary simpliciter are heretics; those who say that it's necessary saltem in voto are not.

    I told you that I reject the temporal punishment position.

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1697
    • Reputation: +692/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #25 on: November 22, 2017, 01:16:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Robert says that true conversion supplies for the Baptism OF WATER.  He's distinguishing it from Baptism of Desire.
    Wow. Baptism of water is the Sacrament of Baptism yes or no?
    If it is, which it is, then he is definitely saying that the Sacrament is not necessary and true conversion provides what is lacking from not receiving the Sacrament.
    It is an error and if held obstinately, after the definitions of Vatican 1, is a heresy. No matter how you try to justify it, they are saying that the Sacrament is not necessary.

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

    He says it is comparable to true Baptism because it is not Baptism, the Sacrament. Therefore, he is saying that the Sacrament is not necessary and that infants may be saved if they are killed for the faith, and even teaches that to oppose this is temerarious. This is another direct contradiction to Dogma as a result.
    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


    Offline Augustinus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 90
    • Reputation: +21/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #26 on: November 22, 2017, 01:34:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow. Baptism of water is the Sacrament of Baptism yes or no?
    If it is, which it is, then he is definitely saying that the Sacrament is not necessary and true conversion provides what is lacking from not receiving the Sacrament.
    It is an error and if held obstinately, after the definitions of Vatican 1, is a heresy. No matter how you try to justify it, they are saying that the Sacrament is not necessary.

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

    He says it is comparable to true Baptism because it is not Baptism, the Sacrament. Therefore, he is saying that the Sacrament is not necessary and that infants may be saved if they are killed for the faith, and even teaches that to oppose this is temerarious. This is another direct contradiction to Dogma as a result.
    Is this statement heretical-
    “The only people who could be saved without sacramental water baptism are those who profess they have no other means of salvation.”
    Where is the denial of necessity?
    The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to be!
    -St. Alphonsus Liguori. (The Holy Eucharist, 494)

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 820
    • Reputation: +600/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #27 on: November 22, 2017, 01:34:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And, just as with the origins of BoD itself, this is nothing but speculation on your part and based on a number of assumptions ... that it would be "an injustice".  Cries of "unfair" and "unmerciful" -- presumptions all against the goodness of God -- are what's behind BoD.  There's NO ACTUAL THEOLOGY BEHIND IT ... just emotional "reasoning" such as in your post here.
    I momentarily forgot the history of this debate so let me clarify.  I'm not talking about some falsely imagined injustice of God.  I'm talking about the bishop (or priest).  Our Lord commanded the bishops to go forth and baptise.  So they have an obligation to save souls by baptising them.  They can't validly baptise anyone unless the one to be baptised assents beforehand.  But someone who requests entrance into the catechumenate has already expressed a desire and consent (at least implicitly) for baptism.  So why wait for months of instruction?  The Ethiopian eunuch was baptised after less than a day of instruction.  Someone who requests entrance into the catechumenate presumably already has some knowledge about what he is getting into.  And it wouldn't take long to find out.  So why insist on months of instruction unnecessarily putting the salvation of the soul at risk?  Wouldn't it also be presumption to assume that God will preserve a soul from death just so you (the bishop or priest) could be satisfied that they know the faith in great detail?  God permits murder too but the murderer is condemned.  So why would the bishop make catechumens study for months before baptism?  And if God will preserve the elect from death before baptism, why baptise a catechumen who is in imminent danger of death?  Why not just trust that God will preserve them?  (That would be presumption, right?)  After all, it is more important that they be instructed before baptism than that they survive long enough to be baptised.  Right?


    Canon 1239: “Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized.”

    Is that heretical?  Did the pope approve a heretical law to be imposed on the entire Church?  Or is it simply supposed that the death of the catechumen is prima facie evidence that they were culpable for not having received baptism?  If that's the case, then every catechumen has a duty to get baptised immediately without delay the moment they realize they cannot be saved without baptism.  The law requiring reception of instruction cannot bind in this case.
    My conclusion is that a centuries-old practice of the Church indicates that it was understood that a catechumen had the same protection that any other member of the Church has with regard to their salvation.  No catechumen will be damned unless they were culpable of some grave sin.  As to whether that is because God will make sure they are baptised with water or in voto, that seems less important to me than the principle that "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 10:32

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1697
    • Reputation: +692/-468
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #28 on: November 22, 2017, 01:43:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Is this statement heretical-
    The only people who could be saved without sacramental water baptism are those who profess they have no other means of salvation.”
    Where is the denial of necessity?
    If you will look above at what I highlighted in your statement you'll see that this part implies that there is salvation without the prerequisite Sacramental Water Baptism. Yes, it is erroneous. If held to obstinately, it is heresy.
    How about this comparable statement: "The only people who could be saved outside the Church are those who profess that they have no other means of salvation". It automatically assumes salvation outside the Church. Therefore, it contradicts Dogma.
    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    Offline Augustinus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 90
    • Reputation: +21/-35
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechumen
    « Reply #29 on: November 22, 2017, 02:00:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you will look above at what I highlighted in your statement you'll see that this part implies that there is salvation without the prerequisite Sacramental Water Baptism. Yes, it is erroneous. If held to obstinately, it is heresy.
    How about this comparable statement: "The only people who could be saved outside the Church are those who profess that they have no other means of salvation". It automatically assumes salvation outside the Church. Therefore, it contradicts Dogma.
    I think you’re missing the point- The efficacy for their salvation lies precisely in the affirmation of Dogmatic Truth- the acknowledging that for them, they have and desire no other option.

    Everyone admits that a catechumen leaning on BoD would be damned for presumption. So really it is only effective if treated as non-existent.

    Therefore, there is no heresy because there is a positive denial that baptism could be optional for them. That’s the way this one exception would prove the rule, the exception can only exist through affirming the rule.

    This is St. Bellarmines argument, that Catechumens ARE saved in the Visible Church, but in the vestibule as it were. Clinging to the Ark that is tossed in the waves as opposed to being brought inside.
    The saints are few, but we must live with the few if we would be saved with the few. O God, too few indeed they are; yet among those few I wish to be!
    -St. Alphonsus Liguori. (The Holy Eucharist, 494)

     

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