Author Topic: The Council of Florence and Baptism of Desire. (Read 19634 times)

Binechi · « **Reply #195 on:** January 14, 2014, 09:00:37 PM »

Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives

If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.

This statement by PPXII is misleading and wrong

"Sanctifying Grace comes only after one is Sacramently water Baptised and enters the Church..

Jehanne · « **Reply #196 on:** January 14, 2014, 09:17:12 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: bowler
Concerning Andysloan, his defenses are 99% his own scriptural interpretations. If I did that in defense of my postion I'd be laughed out of CI.

Bowler,

Go back to my OP. What was the Council of Florence trying to teach us when it declared:

Quote
"By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools."

What do you think that the Council was trying to teach us with the above words? And, please, be specific to this question alone. For instance, can you define for us what you think the Council meant by the term "theological schools"? What, Bowler, would constitute a "theological school"? Can you give us an example? (Hint: The University of Paris.) How about a "catholic teacher"? Can you name a single "catholic teacher" from a "theological school"?

The council of Florence covered many subjects, it is an outrages assumption on your part that it meant exactly what you want it to say. Your defense is laughable. I'd be embarrassed to say such a thing in defense of my position.
Look at my thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written". These are clear direct quotes. What do you answer with? The above comment. It's a joke.

You've never answered my question. As for your plethora of quotes, you cannot find a single one from any Father of the Church who says that a true martyr for Christ who dies without sacramental Baptism goes to eternal Hell. Now, you'll say, "Well, God will take of those folks; He'll supply them with sacramental Baptism, even through miraculous means." What you fail to realize, of course, is that such a view is your theological opinion. It is not a teaching of the Church, nor has it ever been. Saint Augustine may have held to it as a opinion, but he also held to varying opinions on varying subjects all throughout his life. It is a mistake to assume that his final opinion on some theological question was necessarily his best opinion.

But, again, answer my question, "What is the Council of Florence teaching us in the above?"

Ambrose · « **Reply #197 on:** January 15, 2014, 12:08:42 AM »

Quote from: Director

Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives

If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.

This statement by PPXII is misleading and wrong

"Sanctifying Grace comes only after one is Sacramently water Baptised and enters the Church..

Arrogance! You dare correct the Pope? Do you think you know better than Pius XII?

I have news for you, Pope Pius XII was correct, and it is you that are not understanding it.

Ambrose · « **Reply #198 on:** January 15, 2014, 12:20:23 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

St Alphonsus is not infallible. Fallible people in the Church can make theological mistakes and lead us astray.

St Alphonsus says: “Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this name… Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

The passage which St. Alphonsus brings from the Council of Trent, does not teach baptism of desire, but affirms the words of Our Lord in John 3:5. In the mentioned passage, the Church is referring to Justification, not Salvation. It is simply teaching what cannot be lacking for justification at this point, not what is sufficient for its attainment. The Church is teaching here that Justification cannot be effected without the desire for Baptism. It is not telling us at this point what will effect Justification (let alone Salvation), but rather stating a necessity (of desire) for Justification to occur.

Ambrose, if were to believe everything that fallible theologians teach, where can we obtain the truth when these same theologians disagree or contradict each other?

Of course St. Alphonsus is not infallible, that is not at issue. He is witnessing to a fact, and that fact is that Trent taught Baptism of Desire. I have read it myself, and I can assure you that it is right there just as he said it was.

Btw, St. Alphonsus was not the only one to state this fact, many other theologians witnessed to this same fact. The Holy Office said the same.

Trent taught Baptism of Desire. It is a fact. Anyone can read it. I have posted it here on this forum, and you can look it up to yourself.

Those with an agenda to suppress this fact are deeply troubled by this, as they know what it means, that their lies are not working. Their 60 year old heresy has been exposed. Baptism of Desire is de fide.

Catholics will no longer fall for their tricks. The truth is now clear, and all can see the heresy with the full light of day.

Stubborn · « **Reply #199 on:** January 15, 2014, 03:45:06 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella
St Alphonsus is not infallible. Fallible people in the Church can make theological mistakes and lead us astray.

St Alphonsus says: “Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this name… Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

The passage which St. Alphonsus brings from the Council of Trent, does not teach baptism of desire, but affirms the words of Our Lord in John 3:5. In the mentioned passage, the Church is referring to Justification, not Salvation. It is simply teaching what cannot be lacking for justification at this point, not what is sufficient for its attainment. The Church is teaching here that Justification cannot be effected without the desire for Baptism. It is not telling us at this point what will effect Justification (let alone Salvation), but rather stating a necessity (of desire) for Justification to occur.

Ambrose, if were to believe everything that fallible theologians teach, where can we obtain the truth when these same theologians disagree or contradict each other?

Of course St. Alphonsus is not infallible, that is not at issue. He is witnessing to a fact, and that fact is that Trent taught Baptism of Desire. I have read it myself, and I can assure you that it is right there just as he said it was.

Btw, St. Alphonsus was not the only one to state this fact, many other theologians witnessed to this same fact. The Holy Office said the same.

Trent taught Baptism of Desire. It is a fact. Anyone can read it. I have posted it here on this forum, and you can look it up to yourself.

Those with an agenda to suppress this fact are deeply troubled by this, as they know what it means, that their lies are not working. Their 60 year old heresy has been exposed. Baptism of Desire is de fide.

Catholics will no longer fall for their tricks. The truth is now clear, and all can see the heresy with the full light of day.

You are behind the times. Vatican 1 clearly stopped speculation on infallible teachings when Vatican 1 declared dogma is to be understood as declared, not explained.

Unlike you, St. Alphonsus would have submitted to the judgement of the Church had he been alive when V1 declared dogmas are to be understood, not interpreted.

You cling to a teaching which has been infallibly obsoleted by Holy Mother the Church because you despise the blessed sacraments Christ instituted for our salvation and seek to inspire others to despise them. Whether you accept this truth or not is irrelevant because your posts prove it to be fact.

Quote from: Trent's Catechism

The faithful, therefore, having formed a just conception of the dignity of so excellent and exalted a blessing, should be exhorted to profit by it to the best of their ability. For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it; particularly since, in communicating to the Church the power of forgiving sin, the Lord did so with the view that all should have recourse to this healing remedy. As without Baptism no one can be cleansed, so in order to recover the grace of Baptism, forfeited by actual mortal guilt, recourse must be had to another means of expiation, -- namely, the Sacrament of Penance.

SJB · « **Reply #200 on:** January 15, 2014, 07:20:10 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Catechism of the. Council of Trent, McHugh and Callan, 1923

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

Mgr. J. H. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931

II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:

"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."

Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives

If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.

The point here is that these all all consistent, saying the same thing. As a matter of fact, you'll find nobody who teaches differently. Why? Because this point has been settled by Trent and everybody teaches the same.

Binechi · « **Reply #201 on:** January 15, 2014, 07:40:26 AM »

"Sanctifying Grace comes only after one is Sacramently water Baptised and enters the Church..

Show us an example where Santifying Grace is quoted in a Church teaching, that it is administered to a person before that person is admitted into the Church before Sacramental Water Baptism

bowler · « **Reply #202 on:** January 15, 2014, 08:45:19 AM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: bowler
Concerning Andysloan, his defenses are 99% his own scriptural interpretations. If I did that in defense of my postion I'd be laughed out of CI.

Bowler,

Go back to my OP. What was the Council of Florence trying to teach us when it declared:

Quote
"By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools."

What do you think that the Council was trying to teach us with the above words? And, please, be specific to this question alone. For instance, can you define for us what you think the Council meant by the term "theological schools"? What, Bowler, would constitute a "theological school"? Can you give us an example? (Hint: The University of Paris.) How about a "catholic teacher"? Can you name a single "catholic teacher" from a "theological school"?

The council of Florence covered many subjects, it is an outrages assumption on your part that it meant exactly what you want it to say. Your defense is laughable. I'd be embarrassed to say such a thing in defense of my position.
Look at my thread "Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written". These are clear direct quotes. What do you answer with? The above comment. It's a joke.

You've never answered my question. As for your plethora of quotes, you cannot find a single one from any Father of the Church who says that a true martyr for Christ who dies without sacramental Baptism goes to eternal Hell. Now, you'll say, "Well, God will take of those folks; He'll supply them with sacramental Baptism, even through miraculous means." What you fail to realize, of course, is that such a view is your theological opinion. It is not a teaching of the Church, nor has it ever been. Saint Augustine may have held to it as a opinion, but he also held to varying opinions on varying subjects all throughout his life. It is a mistake to assume that his final opinion on some theological question was necessarily his best opinion.

But, again, answer my question, "What is the Council of Florence teaching us in the above?"

I'm not going to waste my time talking about baptism of blood. I have not heard any case of BOB since like 1700 years ago. The only reason why people today discuss BOB is to open the door to salvation for anyone in any false religion.

Regarding your "idea" about Florence, it is puerile and I already answered you.

If you want to believe in explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen and baptism of Blood, so be it. I've never known any catechumen or anyone that knew a catechumen or heard of someone who knew a catechumen who died before he could be baptized. It is a relatively harmless theory affecting (numerically speaking) no one. Meanwhile there are thousands of Catholic stories of people brought back from the dead just to be baptized, then they die. There are millions of examples of people miraculously clinging to life, just to die one second after being baptized.

SJB · « **Reply #203 on:** January 15, 2014, 10:21:21 AM »

Quote from: bowler

I'm not going to waste my time talking about baptism of blood. I have not heard any case of BOB since like 1700 years ago. The only reason why people today discuss BOB is to open the door to salvation for anyone in any false religion.

You know the admission of BOB destroys your stupid ideas on the sacrament of baptism being required for all persons and in all cases. It's a problem for your position, but you know you can't deny it's existence.

andysloan · « **Reply #204 on:** January 15, 2014, 12:08:19 PM »

Genesis 40:9-13 (In a Dungeon)

"The chief butler first told his dream: I saw before me a vine, On which were three branches, which by little and little sent out buds, and after the blossoms brought forth ripe grapes: And the cup of Pharao was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into the cup which I held, and I gave the cup to Pharao. Joseph answered: This is the interpretation of the dream: The three branches are yet three days: After which Pharao will remember thy service, and will restore thee to thy former place. "

Denotations:

1) Dungeon - separation from God

2) Vine - Our Lord Jesus Christ

John 15:15

"I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing."

3) Three branches - three baptisms

4) Pressed them into the cup which I held:

Psalms 15:5

"The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup: it is thou that wilt restore my inheritance to me."

5) Three Days - Christ's time time in the tomb

1 Corinthians 15:17

And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.

6) Former place - the heavenly destiny, before the fall in the Garden of Eden.

Ambrose · « **Reply #205 on:** January 15, 2014, 12:45:08 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler
I'm not going to waste my time talking about baptism of blood. I have not heard any case of BOB since like 1700 years ago. The only reason why people today discuss BOB is to open the door to salvation for anyone in any false religion.

You know the admission of BOB destroys your stupid ideas on the sacrament of baptism being required for all persons and in all cases. It's a problem for your position, but you know you can't deny it's existence.

To the casual observer, they may miss this point. Bowler is holding a less extreme position than the others.

I am surprised the "water or damnation" crowd have not attacked him yet.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #206 on:** January 15, 2014, 02:17:57 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: bowler
I'm not going to waste my time talking about baptism of blood. I have not heard any case of BOB since like 1700 years ago. The only reason why people today discuss BOB is to open the door to salvation for anyone in any false religion.

You know the admission of BOB destroys your stupid ideas on the sacrament of baptism being required for all persons and in all cases. It's a problem for your position, but you know you can't deny it's existence.

To the casual observer, they may miss this point. Bowler is holding a less extreme position than the others.

I am surprised the "water or damnation" crowd have not attacked him yet.

Is bowler slowly waking up or has this been his supposed position for the duration?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #207 on:** January 15, 2014, 02:30:40 PM »

Quote

An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism - Pius XII

After the age of reason one freely chooses to be the member of one of two Kingdoms by action upon what he knows while being limited by what he does not know. The two kingdoms are the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.

When one chooses to love God with the love of Benevolence one has chosen the Kingdom of God over the Kingdom of Satan. It is impossible to have perfect charity apart from God providing the actual grace to obtain it. It is impossible to have perfect charity apart from Sanctifying grace. God provides the actual grace for one outside the Church to obtain perfect charity and sanctifying grace. You cannot have one (perfect charity/sanctifying grace) without the other. A good willed man invincibly ignorant of the necessity of Baptism (by Divine precept and by necessity of means, but not by intrinsic necessity) is not damned for this reason as a perfectly just and merciful God does not damn one because of invincible ignorance.

A person who has perfect charity and is in a state of sanctifying grace, but has not been baptized with water, having reached an age where he can reason, will eventually come to the truth of the necessity of baptism if he lives long enough, but if he dies before coming to this realization God will not damn him to eternal hell-fire over invincible ignorance. It would neither be just nor merciful for God to damn a man who loves Him with the love of benevolence.

bowler · « **Reply #208 on:** January 15, 2014, 03:46:07 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: bowler
I'm not going to waste my time talking about baptism of blood. I have not heard any case of BOB since like 1700 years ago. The only reason why people today discuss BOB is to open the door to salvation for anyone in any false religion.

You know the admission of BOB destroys your stupid ideas on the sacrament of baptism being required for all persons and in all cases. It's a problem for your position, but you know you can't deny it's existence.

To the casual observer, they may miss this point. Bowler is holding a less extreme position than the others.

I am surprised the "water or damnation" crowd have not attacked him yet.

You just posted a perfect example of what I just said about BOB (see large letters).

You Heroin BODers have a huge gaping hole in your side and you choose to ignore it. You are teaching non-Catholics that they can be saved in any false religion!!!!!

Look, if a non-Catholic is told that they can only be saved by becoming Catholics, get baptized, and die in a state of grace OR die as a martyr for Christ desiring to be a Catholic. Do you think one single one would choose to be a martyr? That's one reason is why I call BOB harmless. Read what I wrote above.

Your minds do not work right. You are obsessed with your belief that anyone can be saved in any false religion.

bowler · « **Reply #209 on:** January 15, 2014, 04:43:00 PM »

Let's dissect a Heroin BOders abscurist Orwellian Vatican II double speak:

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote
An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism - Pius XII

(Notice no reference to where Pius XII said this. Is it a fallible docuмent? Where does Pius XII define what this act of love consists of?

LOT is attempting to teach from this vague "quote", that anyone can be saved in any false religion even if they have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor explicit desire to be baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity.

Does this quote say that? Of course not, and this vague quote comes from someone who tells us that we must not interpret as written those crystal clear three pages of dogmatic quotes that I posted. )

After the age of reason one freely chooses to be the member of one of two Kingdoms by action upon what he knows while being limited by what he does not know. The two kingdoms are the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. (LOT is either saying saying that the Kingdom of Satan is still salvific, or else that false religions are not part of the Kingdom Of Satan, since LOT believes and is trying to teach others that people can be saved in any false religion)

When one chooses to love God with the love of Benevolence one has chosen the Kingdom of God over the Kingdom of Satan. It is impossible to have perfect charity apart from God providing the actual grace to obtain it. It is impossible to have perfect charity apart from Sanctifying grace. God provides the actual grace for one outside the Church to obtain perfect charity and sanctifying grace. You cannot have one (perfect charity/sanctifying grace) without the other. A good willed man invincibly ignorant of the necessity of Baptism (by Divine precept and by necessity of means, but not by intrinsic necessity) is not damned for this reason as a perfectly just and merciful God does not damn one because of invincible ignorance. (this is the first time LOT has mentioned invincible ignorance as part of the formula. Is this a mistake on his part? Did he miss that?)

A person who has perfect charity and is in a state of sanctifying grace, but has not been baptized with water, having reached an age where he can reason, will eventually come to the truth of the necessity of baptism if he lives long enough, but if he dies before coming to this realization God will not damn him to eternal hell-fire over invincible ignorance. It would neither be just nor merciful for God to damn a man who loves Him with the love of benevolence. (Now salvation for the non-Catholic hinges on invincible ignorance? I doubt LOT will answer that, he never answers any question. You rarely hear any Heroin BODer ever mention invincible ignorance anymore, they just grant salvation straight out to anyone in any false religion that has no explicit desire to be a Catholic nor belief in Chrrist or the Trinity. )