Author Topic: The Council of Florence and Baptism of Desire. (Read 19645 times)

bowler · « **Reply #15 on:** January 05, 2014, 12:10:20 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
And in this posting now, you sighted a Catechism of the Summa in English by whomever in 1921, it is not the Summa. Please quote the Summa when you wish to make a point.

So, you're saying that Pope Pius XI gave his pontifical approval to a catechism which contains formal heresy?

Quote
We congratulate you sincerely on this fruit of your labours which shows your masterly knowledge of St. Thomas' doctrine. We hope, therefore, through your love of Holy Church that this work will bring many souls to a sound knowledge of Christian doctrine.

http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/catsum.htm#brief

Are you saying that the following is formal heresy?

Quote
Can the Baptism of blood, or the Baptism of desire, take the place of the Baptism of water?

Yes, the Baptism of blood, which is martyrdom and figures the Passion of our Blessed Lord, and the Baptism of desire, which consists in an act of the love of God through the action of the Holy Ghost, can both take the place of the Baptism of water; but in this sense, that the grace of Baptism can be obtained without the reception of the sacrament itself when this reception is impossible; but not in the sense that the character of the sacrament can be received apart from the sacrament itself (LXVI. 11).

"Yes" or "no," if you please.

http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/catsum08.htm

Now you are getting worse, it is not only the direct words of St. Thomas but now the "approval" of a pope of a catechism makes doctrine. I repeat:

Quote from: bowler

That is not his "logic", it is your strawman. His logic is EXACTLY what you posted in your opening posting:

Quote from: Jehanne

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope. CONDEMNED

Jehanne · « **Reply #16 on:** January 05, 2014, 12:18:20 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Now you are getting worse, it is not only the direct words of St. Thomas but now the "approval" of a pope of a catechism makes doctrine. I repeat:

Quote from: bowler

That is not his "logic", it is your strawman. His logic is EXACTLY what you posted in your opening posting:

Quote from: Jehanne

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope. CONDEMNED

Then what catechisms are trustworthy? Can you name a single one?

bowler · « **Reply #17 on:** January 05, 2014, 12:31:05 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Now you are getting worse, it is not only the direct words of St. Thomas but now the "approval" of a pope of a catechism makes doctrine. I repeat:

Quote from: bowler

That is not his "logic", it is your strawman. His logic is EXACTLY what you posted in your opening posting:

Quote from: Jehanne

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope. CONDEMNED

Then what catechisms are trustworthy? Can you name a single one?

Use the Catechism of Trent in English, and have the Latin edition as a backup, to double check the translation.

What exactly do you want to believe about baptism of desire? That is the rudder of the heroin BODers (what steers their "search").

Jehanne · « **Reply #18 on:** January 05, 2014, 12:44:03 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: bowler
Now you are getting worse, it is not only the direct words of St. Thomas but now the "approval" of a pope of a catechism makes doctrine. I repeat:

Quote from: bowler

That is not his "logic", it is your strawman. His logic is EXACTLY what you posted in your opening posting:

Quote from: Jehanne

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope. CONDEMNED

Then what catechisms are trustworthy? Can you name a single one?

Use the Catechism of Trent in English, and have the Latin edition as a backup, to double check the translation.

What exactly do you want to believe about baptism of desire? That is the rudder of the heroin BODers (what steers their "search").

Quote

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.

Conclusion: It is at least possible for someone to be saved without sacramental Baptism.

bowler · « **Reply #19 on:** January 05, 2014, 12:45:17 PM »

Quote from: bowler

DESIRE AND DECEPTION by Thomas A. Hutchinson
Page 56

The Catechism of the Council of Trent can give us further insight into Trent's teaching on the matter. Unfortunately (and perhaps tellingly) most recent English translations have altered the words dealing in this area. But the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul edition, translated by Fr. Robert 1. Bradley and Msgr. Eugene Kevane and entitled The Roman Catechism suffers from no such distortion possibly because the vast number of ambiguous Vatican II statements which can be used as footnotes obviate any such need with apparently equally solemn pronouncements. Saving those annotations, though, it is the best and most official catechism in existence. Let us see what it says:

31. The Necessity of Baptism

What we have considered thus far regarding Baptism is all very important. Yet what we must consider now is even more so, viz., its absolute necessity, as taught by Our Lord himself. The law of Baptism applies to all mankind without exception. Unless they are reborn through the grace of Baptism no matter whether they were born of believing or unbelieving parents, they are in fact born to eternal misery and loss. The pastor, therefore, must constantly go back to those oft repeated words of the Gospel: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (p. 178).

This is an interesting passage indeed; it allows for no exceptions (and "baptisms" of blood and desire are surely exceptions) to the law of baptism. It bears particularly hard on "invincible ignorance," for it will not allow exceptions to made even for those born (and so presumably raised) with no knowledge of the Faith. This attitude is in keeping with what the Catechism calls the Ultimate Effect of Baptism in N. 58 (p.191): “By Baptism the gates of heaven, which sin had closed, are opened to us”.

Jehanne · « **Reply #20 on:** January 05, 2014, 02:11:33 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: bowler
DESIRE AND DECEPTION by Thomas A. Hutchinson
Page 56

The Catechism of the Council of Trent can give us further insight into Trent's teaching on the matter. Unfortunately (and perhaps tellingly) most recent English translations have altered the words dealing in this area. But the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul edition, translated by Fr. Robert 1. Bradley and Msgr. Eugene Kevane and entitled The Roman Catechism suffers from no such distortion possibly because the vast number of ambiguous Vatican II statements which can be used as footnotes obviate any such need with apparently equally solemn pronouncements. Saving those annotations, though, it is the best and most official catechism in existence. Let us see what it says:

31. The Necessity of Baptism

What we have considered thus far regarding Baptism is all very important. Yet what we must consider now is even more so, viz., its absolute necessity, as taught by Our Lord himself. The law of Baptism applies to all mankind without exception. Unless they are reborn through the grace of Baptism no matter whether they were born of believing or unbelieving parents, they are in fact born to eternal misery and loss. The pastor, therefore, must constantly go back to those oft repeated words of the Gospel: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (p. 178).

This is an interesting passage indeed; it allows for no exceptions (and "baptisms" of blood and desire are surely exceptions) to the law of baptism. It bears particularly hard on "invincible ignorance," for it will not allow exceptions to made even for those born (and so presumably raised) with no knowledge of the Faith. This attitude is in keeping with what the Catechism calls the Ultimate Effect of Baptism in N. 58 (p.191): “By Baptism the gates of heaven, which sin had closed, are opened to us”.

bowler · « **Reply #21 on:** January 05, 2014, 04:49:16 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: bowler
DESIRE AND DECEPTION by Thomas A. Hutchinson
Page 56

The Catechism of the Council of Trent can give us further insight into Trent's teaching on the matter. Unfortunately (and perhaps tellingly) most recent English translations have altered the words dealing in this area. But the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul edition, translated by Fr. Robert 1. Bradley and Msgr. Eugene Kevane and entitled The Roman Catechism suffers from no such distortion possibly because the vast number of ambiguous Vatican II statements which can be used as footnotes obviate any such need with apparently equally solemn pronouncements. Saving those annotations, though, it is the best and most official catechism in existence. Let us see what it says:

31. The Necessity of Baptism

What we have considered thus far regarding Baptism is all very important. Yet what we must consider now is even more so, viz., its absolute necessity, as taught by Our Lord himself. The law of Baptism applies to all mankind without exception. Unless they are reborn through the grace of Baptism no matter whether they were born of believing or unbelieving parents, they are in fact born to eternal misery and loss. The pastor, therefore, must constantly go back to those oft repeated words of the Gospel: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (p. 178).

This is an interesting passage indeed; it allows for no exceptions (and "baptisms" of blood and desire are surely exceptions) to the law of baptism. It bears particularly hard on "invincible ignorance," for it will not allow exceptions to made even for those born (and so presumably raised) with no knowledge of the Faith. This attitude is in keeping with what the Catechism calls the Ultimate Effect of Baptism in N. 58 (p.191): “By Baptism the gates of heaven, which sin had closed, are opened to us”.

No matter what anyone says to you, you will choose what you want to believe. Nowhere does Trent mention BOB or BOD, so you have to look for whatever you want to believe.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nishant
Ladislaus, if you are going to quote Msgr. Fenton on this, what of the Code?

What of it? The Code is not a dogmatic definition and has no intention of defining any dogma, nor does it define BoD but keeps the door open to it, i.e. allows people have the opinion that there's BoD for catechumens.

Nor can BoD ever be defined as a dogma because,

1) there's no evidence from the Church Fathers that this was revealed (St. Augustine is the ONLY Church Father who speculated about BOD, using very tentative language, but he himself later rejected the opinion, and St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory nαzιanzen both explicitly reject the notion). There are about 8 Fathers who can be cited as referring to BoB, but several of them are not using the term as being a replacement for Baptism but as a second Baptism, and 2 of these actually in the same sentence reject BoD by saying that BoD is the ONLY exception to not having water Baptism. And the other ones can be traced back to following St. Cyprian (who regrettably espoused material heresy regarding Baptism in the same work in which he talks about BoB).

2) there has NEVER been any argument from any Doctor of the Church upholding the dogma based on its deriving from other revealed truths, St. Robert Bellarmine argues on the basis of it seeming "too harsh", St. Bernard simply relies on the "authority" of St. Augustine, and St. Thomas' argument just says that the Sacraments have visible and invisible aspects to them but does not explain how they can be separated in the Sacrament of Baptism. In other words, BoD lies SQUARELY in the realm of speculative theology based on the premise that it would be somehow unfair or unjust or "not nice" of God not to do it.

So there's no way BoD can ever be defined as a dogma.

I'm sorry, but all the "theological" arguments for BoD are complete garbage, which is why BoDers NEVER get into them, relying instead on quoting modernists and rehashing gratuitous statements.

I want to see 1) proof that this was unanimously held by the Church Fathers or 2) a syllogism demonstrating how this derives from other Catholic dogma.

Absent those, there's absolutely no way you can say that BoD is dogma and can be defined, or that so-called "Feeneyites" can be classified as heretics.

I'm very weary of people simply quoting things on the subject or making gratuitous assertions. I'm still waiting for a rational argument from the BoDers.

Explain to me how BoD has been revealed as a dogma by either proving that it's of universal consensus among the Church Fathers or how it derives implicitly from other Church dogma. This can't be done.

bowler · « **Reply #22 on:** January 05, 2014, 05:00:06 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: bowler
DESIRE AND DECEPTION by Thomas A. Hutchinson
Page 56

The Catechism of the Council of Trent can give us further insight into Trent's teaching on the matter. Unfortunately (and perhaps tellingly) most recent English translations have altered the words dealing in this area. But the 1985 Daughters of St. Paul edition, translated by Fr. Robert 1. Bradley and Msgr. Eugene Kevane and entitled The Roman Catechism suffers from no such distortion possibly because the vast number of ambiguous Vatican II statements which can be used as footnotes obviate any such need with apparently equally solemn pronouncements. Saving those annotations, though, it is the best and most official catechism in existence. Let us see what it says:

31. The Necessity of Baptism

What we have considered thus far regarding Baptism is all very important. Yet what we must consider now is even more so, viz., its absolute necessity, as taught by Our Lord himself. The law of Baptism applies to all mankind without exception. Unless they are reborn through the grace of Baptism no matter whether they were born of believing or unbelieving parents, they are in fact born to eternal misery and loss. The pastor, therefore, must constantly go back to those oft repeated words of the Gospel: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (p. 178).

This is an interesting passage indeed; it allows for no exceptions (and "baptisms" of blood and desire are surely exceptions) to the law of baptism. It bears particularly hard on "invincible ignorance," for it will not allow exceptions to made even for those born (and so presumably raised) with no knowledge of the Faith. This attitude is in keeping with what the Catechism calls the Ultimate Effect of Baptism in N. 58 (p.191): “By Baptism the gates of heaven, which sin had closed, are opened to us”.

Compare your choosing those words in red to these clear dogmas which I read as they are clearly written:

All the infallible decrees on the sacrament of baptism fit together perfectly, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. In all honesty even BODers must admit that if the Holy Ghost had any intention of defining an excuse like BOD at Trent, he does it in most obscure language. On the other hand, the meaning of Trent and tradition (the unanimous opinion of the Fathers) is clear and intelligible if we do not try to force a reference to "BOD" in between the lines.

John 3:5 Is to be Understood Literally, as it is Written

The Fathers of the Church are unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that John 3:5 is to be understood literally, as it is written. So as not to clog this posting with all of the quotes of Early Church Fathers who believed in John 3:5 as it is written, I quote:

Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Council of Trent, Session VI (Jan. 13, 1547)
Decree on Justification,
Chapter IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).

Chapter VII.

What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified;

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism

Canon 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

SJB · « **Reply #23 on:** January 05, 2014, 06:26:53 PM »

Quote from: bowler

In all honesty even BODers must admit that if the Holy Ghost had any intention of defining an excuse like BOD at Trent, he does it in most obscure language. On the other hand, the meaning of Trent and tradition (the unanimous opinion of the Fathers) is clear and intelligible if we do not try to force a reference to "BOD" in between the lines.

Nobody is saying BOD was the subject of a definition at Trent.

Jehanne · « **Reply #24 on:** January 05, 2014, 10:36:29 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Here's the whole quote from Jurgens:

Quote

31. The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

Some loose thinkers are content to apply Baptism of desire to an infant, who is incapable of knowing and desiring. That being pointed out, they will posit the desire in parents on behalf of children; but if in fact the parents do not desire or if they positively reject Baptism for their infant child, is the infant then to be damned because of the parents' ignorance or malice? Many today are content to ignore the problem as if it did not exist, or to treat it as a ridiculous scruple. We hear them quote the Scriptures, that God desires all men to be saved, as if that had any application here! Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition.

Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas' first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard to infants and the invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it.

Cantarella · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2014, 10:53:39 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Now you are getting worse, it is not only the direct words of St. Thomas but now the "approval" of a pope of a catechism makes doctrine. I repeat:

Quote from: bowler

That is not his "logic", it is your strawman. His logic is EXACTLY what you posted in your opening posting:

Quote from: Jehanne

1320 30. When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope. CONDEMNED

Then what catechisms are trustworthy? Can you name a single one?

Catechisms are simply "presentations" of Church doctrine that has previously been defined. The docuмents of the Catechism are not infallible themselves. They should always explain what the Church has always taught and have their merit as long as they do not contradict Magisterial teaching. To determine the degree of authority with which any given teaching has been defined, one must investigate the history of that particular teaching.

We could look to the particular page's footnotes for help. There we should be able to find references to Church councils, docuмents, canon law, Scripture, etc., all of varying degrees of authority. For controversial points, such as BOD, is best to adhere to Infallible defined doctrine. Best to remember:

* Doctrine that has always been taught and believed by the Church is infallible. This is what is called Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium").

* Doctrine that has solemnly defined by Pope or Council is infallible. This is what is called Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Universal Magisterium")

* Other teachings (by authorized theologians, bishops, or even Popes not speaking ex cathedra) is fallible, although owed religious assent unless they prove harmful and contradict the Faith, (such in the case of BOD). This is what is called Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium.

From what I understand, the Catechism of The Council Of Trent is the best of all and sound Catholic teaching.

bowler · « **Reply #26 on:** January 06, 2014, 09:17:51 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Here's the whole quote from Jurgens:

Quote
31. The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

Some loose thinkers are content to apply Baptism of desire to an infant, who is incapable of knowing and desiring. That being pointed out, they will posit the desire in parents on behalf of children; but if in fact the parents do not desire or if they positively reject Baptism for their infant child, is the infant then to be damned because of the parents' ignorance or malice? Many today are content to ignore the problem as if it did not exist, or to treat it as a ridiculous scruple. We hear them quote the Scriptures, that God desires all men to be saved, as if that had any application here! Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition.

Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas' first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard to infants and the invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it.

Can you supply me with the source? Book page?

bowler · « **Reply #27 on:** January 06, 2014, 09:37:32 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Here's the whole quote from Jurgens:

Quote
31. The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

Some loose thinkers are content to apply Baptism of desire to an infant, who is incapable of knowing and desiring. That being pointed out, they will posit the desire in parents on behalf of children; but if in fact the parents do not desire or if they positively reject Baptism for their infant child, is the infant then to be damned because of the parents' ignorance or malice? Many today are content to ignore the problem as if it did not exist, or to treat it as a ridiculous scruple. We hear them quote the Scriptures, that God desires all men to be saved, as if that had any application here! Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition.

Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas' first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard to infants and the invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it.

OK, forget my posting above, I looked it up myself in my book, it is in The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 3, footnote 31, on page 14 and 15.

It's clear that he is talking about the "state of infants who die without Baptism", when he says what I quoted. I stand corrected.

Now, regarding the complete quote, and infant baptism, he is Jurgens is advocating heresy:

-Pope Innocent III (1160-1216), Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…”
-Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
-Council of Trent, Session 5, Part 4

"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."
-Catechism of the Council of Trent; Issued by Pope Saint Pius V in 1547 AD

bowler · « **Reply #28 on:** January 06, 2014, 09:51:52 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Here's the whole quote from Jurgens:

Quote
31. The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

Some loose thinkers are content to apply Baptism of desire to an infant, who is incapable of knowing and desiring. That being pointed out, they will posit the desire in parents on behalf of children; but if in fact the parents do not desire or if they positively reject Baptism for their infant child, is the infant then to be damned because of the parents' ignorance or malice? Many today are content to ignore the problem as if it did not exist, or to treat it as a ridiculous scruple. We hear them quote the Scriptures, that God desires all men to be saved, as if that had any application here! Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition.

Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas' first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard to infants and the invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it.

This entire quote by Jurgens is just a pile of gratuitous (undocuмented, no proof) speculation without any proof.

When I posted my BOD portion, I had all the proof of its accuracy, there is not one quote from a Father in favor of the salvation of those who have no explicit desire to be baptized. Fr. Jurgens on the other hand has all of tradition against his speculation on the salvation of unbaptized infants, and he provides no proof whatsoever except his "interpretation" of St. Thomas and Alphonsus Ligouri. Notice he nowhere mentions the dogmas on the subject.

Now, regarding BOD

He does the same thing regarding BOD, he makes the undocuмented comment that:

"Tradition already admits Thomas' first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself"

Where is his proof? He is saying that John 3:5 is not to be taken literally, just like Eucharist quote in scripture (John 6:53) is not taken literally. Where is his proof that the Fathers did not take it literally?

bowler · « **Reply #29 on:** January 06, 2014, 10:00:00 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Here's the whole quote from Jurgens:

Quote
31. The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

Some loose thinkers are content to apply Baptism of desire to an infant, who is incapable of knowing and desiring. That being pointed out, they will posit the desire in parents on behalf of children; but if in fact the parents do not desire or if they positively reject Baptism for their infant child, is the infant then to be damned because of the parents' ignorance or malice? Many today are content to ignore the problem as if it did not exist, or to treat it as a ridiculous scruple. We hear them quote the Scriptures, that God desires all men to be saved, as if that had any application here! Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition.

Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas' first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard to infants and the invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it.

This entire quote by Jurgens is just a pile of gratuitous (undocuмented, no proof) speculation without any proof.

When I posted my BOD portion, I had all the proof of its accuracy, there is not one quote from a Father in favor of the salvation of those who have no explicit desire to be baptized. Fr. Jurgens on the other hand has all of tradition against his speculation on the salvation of unbaptized infants, and he provides no proof whatsoever except his "interpretation" of St. Thomas and Alphonsus Ligouri. Notice he nowhere mentions the dogmas on the subject.

Now, regarding BOD

He does the same thing regarding BOD, he makes the undocuмented comment that:

"Tradition already admits Thomas' first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself"

Where is his proof? He is saying that John 3:5 is not to be taken literally, just like Eucharist quote in scripture (John 6:53) is not taken literally. Where is his proof that the Fathers did not take it literally?