Author Topic: The Council of Florence and Baptism of Desire. (Read 19709 times)

bowler · « **Reply #60 on:** January 09, 2014, 04:23:04 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Bowler
the case of Emperor Valentian II, the funeral oration of St Ambrose is an extant docuмent.

You should read the entire funeral oration for yourself. Here is what the BODers always quote from the eulogy:

"But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... (De Obitu Valentiniani, 51-53).

Out of the hundreds of fathers of the Church, the only other one (besides two quotes from St. Augustine that the baptism of desire advocates even try to quote is St. Ambrose. They think that in his funeral speech for his friend the Emperor Valentinian he taught that the emperor (who was only a catechumen) was saved by his desire for baptism. But St. Ambrose’s funeral speech for Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It is thus gratuitous for them to assert that it clearly teaches the idea of “baptism of desire.”

Here's the part that the BODers always leave out when they quote the eulogy:

"Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly
celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him, also."

Observe that St. Ambrose clearly says that “martyrs are not crowned (that is, not saved) if they are catechumens,” a statement which directly denies the idea of baptism of blood and is perfectly consistent with his other statements on the issue, which I quote below. St. Ambrose then emphasizes the same point, by stating again that catechumens “are not crowned if they are not initiated.” “Initiation” is a term for baptism. Thus, St. Ambrose is repeating the apostolic truth that catechumens who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved if they are not baptized. He then proceeds to say that if they are washed in their own blood, his (Valentinian’s) piety and desire have washed him also, which seems to directly contradict what he just said and seems to teach baptism of desire and blood, although it is not clear, since he did not say that Valentinian was saved without baptism. But if that is what St. Ambrose means, then his funeral speech is nonsensical, since he just clearly denied two times that martyrs can be crowned if they are catechumens. And this is the oldest “text” quoted in favor of the idea of baptism of desire!

It is, first of all, contradictory; secondly, it is ambiguous; and thirdly, if interpreted to mean that a catechumen is saved without water baptism, is opposed to every other statement St. Ambrose formally made on the issue.

We know by his other writings, that St. Ambrose in fact taught directly and clearly against even the idea of baptism of desire for a catechumen. What then, did he mean by his speech over Valentinian ? Fr. Migne supplies the answer himself (Patrologia Latina, XVI 412, n. 19). St. Ambrose in fact knew, that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, but was not at liberty to reveal the circuмstances of the event, which presumably were bound up with the Emperor's mysterious death. Seen in this light, the three sentences represent no departure from Ambrose's teaching elsewhere; moreover, they are in full keeping with the entire tenor of his speech: vague but reassuring. What was the "grace he desired?" Baptism of course! St. Ambrose is assuring his listeners that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, and so they need not fear for him on that count.

Again, here is what St. Ambrose wrote with much thought and precision, which eliminates the very concept of baptism of desire and affirms the universal Tradition of all the fathers that no one (including catechumens) is saved without water baptism.

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390‐391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism
are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any
one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is
water without the cross of Christ? A common element without
any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any
mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be
born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in
the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but,
unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor
be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

Binechi · « **Reply #61 on:** January 09, 2014, 04:46:24 PM »

:applause:

Bravo ... for this bowler,,, Well done...

andysloan · « **Reply #62 on:** January 09, 2014, 06:20:48 PM »

To bowler:

Could you give an explanation of the use of plural by St Paul as follows:

Hebrews 6:2

"Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. "

Stubborn · « **Reply #63 on:** January 09, 2014, 06:35:02 PM »

The doctrine of baptisms, which he expresseth in the plural number, either because all the faithful must be baptized once, if we speak of Christian baptism; or he means that persons ought to know they cannot receive Christ's baptism over again. Or, in fine, he means that the baptisms used by the Jews, which they so frequently repeated, could not make them justified.

You should use the Haydock Bibile whenever you read the Scriptures.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/

SJB · « **Reply #64 on:** January 09, 2014, 06:55:01 PM »

Quote from: Mark Chapter 16, Verse 16

He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.

Ver. 16. Let those weep and lament who have not yet seen him, and in a short time they shall receive consolation. Blessed are they that weep, for they shall be comforted, St. Matthew v. (St. Jerome) --- Perhaps some one will say within himself, I have already believed, I shall be saved: he says true, if his faith be supported by good works; for that only is true faith, which does not contradict in works what is believed in words. (St. Gregory)

SJB · « **Reply #65 on:** January 09, 2014, 08:31:06 PM »

Quote from: Acts Ch 10, Verse 47

Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)

Jehanne · « **Reply #66 on:** January 09, 2014, 08:32:26 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote
The Summa was considered heretical for some time. St. Bonaventure called St. Thomas, the Father of all Heresies.

Source for this? Charles Coulombe, maybe?

I would certainly like to see a source for this claim, also. If what the Wikipedia article states is, indeed, true, namely,

Quote

In this form, the book was widely adopted as a theological textbook in the high and late Middle Ages (the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries). A commentary on the Sentences was required of every master of theology, and was part of the examination system. At the end of lectures on Lombard's work, a student could apply for bachelor status within the theology faculty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentences#Origin_and_Characteristics

It's just impossible for me to imagine that if the Sentences contains overt, manifest heresy, why it was so widely used and referenced throughout the Middle Ages, before, during, and after the three dogmatic decrees on EENS.

SJB · « **Reply #67 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:05:16 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Acts Ch 10, Verse 47
Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)

contemneth = scorn

Ambrose · « **Reply #68 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:24:20 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB
Quote
The Summa was considered heretical for some time. St. Bonaventure called St. Thomas, the Father of all Heresies.

Source for this? Charles Coulombe, maybe?

I would certainly like to see a source for this claim, also. If what the Wikipedia article states is, indeed, true, namely,

Quote
In this form, the book was widely adopted as a theological textbook in the high and late Middle Ages (the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries). A commentary on the Sentences was required of every master of theology, and was part of the examination system. At the end of lectures on Lombard's work, a student could apply for bachelor status within the theology faculty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentences#Origin_and_Characteristics

It's just impossible for me to imagine that if the Sentences contains overt, manifest heresy, why it was so widely used and referenced throughout the Middle Ages, before, during, and after the three dogmatic decrees on EENS.

I would also like to see the source for this alleged statement by St. Bonaventure against St. Thomas.

By source, I do not mean modern men with an agenda, I mean a source which demonstrates the authenticity of the quote.

bowler · « **Reply #69 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:39:53 PM »

You heroin BODers strain a gnat and swallow a herd of camels. What do gnats like these you are knit-picking on matter when:

Quote from: bowler

Notice that the three threads that I started are about Heroin BOD, the belief that a person can be saved even if he has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor to be baptized (of course), nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

I've been doing only that for quite some time, and these people like SJB, Lover of Truth, and Ambrose who persist in arguing with me, understand very well that they ARE DEFENDING HEROIN BOD, for that is all that I am talking about. Make no mistake about it this is not about a catechumen or a martyr for the faith that they are defending.

They are defending the teaching that persons who practice ANY false "religion", can be saved even if they has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, nor explicit desire to be baptized , nor belief in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

That belief they are defending is not taught by one Father, Doctor or Saint, and is opposed to the Council and Catechism of Trent, and all the dogmatic decrees on EENS and the Sacrament of Baptism.

andysloan · « **Reply #70 on:** January 10, 2014, 03:13:27 AM »

To Bowler

I would be interested in your explanation of St Paul's use of plural as follows:

Hebrews 6:2

"Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

Also, a response from bowler and stubborn on Christ's words to St Catherine of Siena.

"I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; but falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..." St Catherine of Siena -Dialogues

This apparition is approved by the church.

"Although an assent of Catholic faith may not and can not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence is due them; for, according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence." (Pope Benedict XIV, 1675-1758, De Serv. Dei Beatif.)

andysloan · « **Reply #71 on:** January 10, 2014, 03:23:38 AM »

On the Haydock Bible

The "Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible"
The other supposed "Douay-Rheims" Bible being widely sold today is the Haydock Bible. Unfortunately it is another Challoner variation.

The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia under the subject "Haydock, George Leo" has this to say concerning the "Haydock Bible" now being erroneously sold as the Douay-Rheims:

Father Haydock's chief publication was a new edition of the English translation of the Latin Vulgate first published at Reims in 1582, and at Douai in 1609; Bishop Challoner's text of 1750 was the basis of the work, but in the New Testament Dr. Troy's edition of 1794 is largely followed. The notes are partly original, partly selected from other writers, those on the New Testament not having been compiled by Father Haydock. The edition appeared in Manchester, 1812- 14; Dublin, 1812-13; Edinburgh and Dublin, 1845-8; New York, 1852-6.

So, to recapitulate, we see that Father Haydock's version

is NOT the Douay-Rheims
is not only the Challoner version, but the New Testament is largely the Troy version of 1794, and,
the notes for the New Testament are NOT his notes.

"Further, John Henry [later Cardinal] Newman in his July, 1859 "Rambler" article (see below for more) states:

"We must not conclude this enumeration of revisions and reprints of the Rheims and Douay, ... which were published ... without direct episcopal sanction... This is Haydock's Bible...

[T]he respective publishers, were printers; but the editor and annotator employed by the former was his own brother, who was a priest, the Rev. George Haydock, to whom the edition owes its celebrity."

--- The "Troy Version" used by Fr. Haydock ---
"The question remains now, what is the "Troy version"? Most have not heard of it.

John Henry Newman in the July, 1859 "Rambler" published an article entitled "The History of the Text of the Rheims and Douay Version of Holy Scripture" He states:

§ 3. Dr. Troy's Bible

"...The revisor was the Rev. Bernard Macmahon, a Dublin priest, who published his first edition in 1783, in 12mo, with the formal approbation of his Archbishop, Dr. Carpenter. There is reason for supposing that it professed to be a continuation of Dr. Challoner's labours&

Eight years afterwards, in 1791, the same clergyman was selected by Dr. Troy, his then Archbishop, to superintend an edition...

We doubt ...whether he is further from the Protestant version than Dr. Challoner."

Thus, the Haydock Bible is NOT the Real Douay-Rheims Bible.

To finish with the information on the Challoner Version, please recall Cardinal Wiseman's statement:

"...In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]. . ."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #72 on:** January 10, 2014, 03:40:23 AM »

Quote from: bowler

You heroin BODers strain a gnat and swallow a herd of camels. What do gnats like these you are knit-picking on matter when:
...

Dear bowler,

The term is nit-picking, or nitpicking. Dictionary

(To knit is to weave a blanket or a sweater with yarn. But a nit is a louse, and picking lice out of someone's hair, for example, is nit-picking.)

Ironically, it can be viewed as nitpicking to point out the proper spelling of nitpicking.

.

Stubborn · « **Reply #73 on:** January 10, 2014, 05:14:59 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Acts Ch 10, Verse 47
Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)

contemneth = scorn

Not sure what your point is but if you read what is written, you will find this is teaching that there is no justification without the sacraments.

Quote

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament.

It is teaching first that to be made members, Christ ordained the sacrament of baptism.

Then that the remission of sins, justification, and sanctification may occasionally happen through great charity and contrition *before one actually receives the sacraments*, not without them.

Note, that justification which God may grant, may only happen prior to receiving the sacraments, not without them.

Note that this justification is not guaranteed but only *may* happen *occasionally* and is *dependent* upon great charity and contrition - prior to actually receiving the sacraments.

This agrees with what Trent teaches, that in order for contrition to effect this justification prior to receiving the sacraments, that this contrition "must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces. This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins." which is why St. Augustine teaches that it only "may" happen and only "occasionally", prior to the actual reception of the sacrament.

So we see the sacrament is still necessary in order to attain justification.
We see that he taught the sacrament was a necessity.
We also see he did *not* teach that said justification was attainable without the sacrament.
He certainly did *not* teach that some implicit desire for the sacrament sufficed for salvation.

All this agrees with Trent.

St. Augustine then goes on to reiterate, not only the necessity of the sacrament, but also explicitly teaches that without the sacrament, one can never be justified:

Quote

But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth [scorns], can never be justified.

This is all in complete agreement with the Council of Trent and it's catechism.

Quote from: Trent

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;

and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Stubborn · « **Reply #74 on:** January 10, 2014, 05:29:57 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Bowler

I would be interested in your explanation of St Paul's use of plural as follows:

Hebrews 6:2

"Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

Also, a response from bowler and stubborn on Christ's words to St Catherine of Siena.

"I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that you mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; but falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..." St Catherine of Siena -Dialogues

This apparition is approved by the church.

"Although an assent of Catholic faith may not and can not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence is due them; for, according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence." (Pope Benedict XIV, 1675-1758, De Serv. Dei Beatif.)

It is a private revelation which contradicts ex cathedra teaching.