Author Topic: Getting into heaven without valid baptism? (Read 2275 times)

Jamie · « **on:** February 08, 2010, 09:00:32 PM »

Pope Innocent III, 1198 - 1216

From the letter "Debitum pastoralis officii", August 28, 1206

"You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jєω, when at he point of death, since he lived only among Jєωs, immersed himself in water while saying: 'I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.'

We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord[,] the Jєω mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith."

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2010, 09:11:14 PM »

What did he know???

He might just as well have been named Ignoramus III! :wink:

Jamie · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2010, 09:18:09 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

What did he know???

He might just as well have been named Ignoramus III! :wink:

Hmm, shouldn't that be "Anti-pope Ignoramus III"? :)

CM · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2010, 09:30:05 PM »

I wonder what this does to Pope John XXII (who died in 1334)... He said that souls don't get to see God until after the Final Judgment. But wait... wasn't that a heresy after the dogmatic definition of Pope Benedict XII (in 1336)?
:detective:

I guess it's quite admissible after all that Innocent III (who died in 1216) was simply incorrect and that he was unable to take advantage of the definition of Vienne, which taught (nearly 100 years later - and nearly 40 years after the death of St. Thomas as well):

Quote from: Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, AD 1311-1312 (Tanner Vol. 15, p. 361) (the first dogmatic definition which rendered it unlawful to believe that a person may be saved without the sacrament of Baptism - and it behooves us to look first at the Latin)

Ad hoc baptisma unicuм baptizatos omnes in Christo regenerans est, sicut unus Deus ac fides unica, ab omnibus fideliter confitendum, quod celebratum in aqua in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, credimus esse tam adultis quam parvulis communiter perfectum remedium ad salutem.

As anyone can see who takes pains to translate it, this is one sentence (contrary to the English translation in Tanner, which breaks it up into two sentences), and that it says in no uncertain terms:

Quote

To this one Baptism which baptizes all people who in Christ are regenerated, as one God and one Faith, all the faithful must confess, which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, we believe to be to shared by adults to such a degree as to infants, a perfect remedy unto salvation.

Conversely, even the English translation offered by Tanner is undeniable:

Quote

All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith'. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.

Question: If it is Baptism in water that baptizes every single soul regenerated in Christ, then in whom is a person regenerated who receives BoD?

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2010, 10:30:38 PM »

CM, do you know the difference between an affirmative proposition versus an exclusive proposition? Can you not see that in their very statement, they use the term 'perfect' which doesn't exclude extraordinary means to receive the effects of baptism?

CM · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2010, 10:35:48 PM »

Penance is also a means of salvation (though imperfect, Trent called it a "laborious type of Baptism"), or do you deny this?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2010, 10:44:35 PM »

I am looking at the Latin. If anyone is an expert in Latin, please come to the rescue. But from what I have gathered,
"baptisma unicuм" is the part that means "one baptism." Meanwhile, "baptizatos omnes in Christo" means "all who are baptized in Christ."

Your first translation is a hackjob, CM. It twists the decree to your own purposes by saying the "one baptism which baptizes." The Tanner translation splits it up into two sentences but correctly translates "baptizatos omnes" as "all those baptized."

Why is this important? It makes all the difference in the world. Because those who qualify for baptism of desire are not baptized in Christ. They are not baptized at all.

*** Raoul76 will now break it down for all y'all ***

Water-baptism regenerates all those who are baptized in Christ --

But those who qualify for BoB and BoD are not baptized in Christ, because BoB and BoD are not technically baptisms --

Ergo, Vienne does not deny baptism of desire, as catechumens who die before reaching the font are never baptized in Christ, but attain the effects of baptism through extraordinary means.

Another way to say it is that water-baptism regenerates all those who are baptized in Christ, but that others who qualify for BoD and BoB are regenerated by the desire to receive the baptism that regenerates all who are baptized in Christ.

I will give myself a round of applause
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2010, 10:57:38 PM »

I actually didn't explain that very well. Let me try it again, because this will tend to tangle your mind in knots.

( A ) CM's faulty translation says: "To this one Baptism which baptizes all people who in Christ are regenerated..."

( B ) The correct Tanner translation says: "...there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ..."

For those reading this thread, what I want you to focus on is "regenerated/regenerates." I wish I was better at grammar, so I could explain exactly what is going on, but look at how the category of the "regenerated" changes dramatically from one translation to the next. When reading each translation, ask yourself, who are the regenerated?

In CM's favored translation, ALL who are regenerated in Christ have been baptized in water. This is why he likes that translation. If Vienne is saying what it says in this translation, there is no BoD or BoB.

But in the real translation, water-baptism simply regenerates all those who are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, that is, in Christ. This does not rule out another form of regeneration. But CM's translation does.

CM · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2010, 11:20:22 PM »

You are wrong, your self aggrandizement notwithstanding. You have LITERALLY performed the hack job, not I.

And besides, you are still forced (even if you were correct here, which you are not as is easily shown) to either deny or change (as you have tried to do here) the meaning of the clear and obvious words of Exultate Deo.

LATIN of Vienne: Ad hoc baptisma unicuм baptizatos omnes in Christo regenerans est

Even this little part at the beginning is one phrase Mike, not two separate things that you can chop up as you have done. What you have suggested eradicates any semblance of purpose to "regenerans est"

ENGLISH (according to your hacking of the phrase into two pieces): To this (ad hoc) "one Baptism" "all who are baptized in Christ" "ARE regenerated..."

Your bogus hackjob makes no grammatical sense when you try to apply it. And it is further undeniable that not only does the Tanner translation gratuitously HACK the one sentence into two, it also inverts the locations of the words baptizatos and regenerans est.

It would have to begin with "By this baptism" in order to make any grammatical sense according to your proposition, and the entire second half of the sentence would have to be different.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2010, 12:43:48 AM »

HOW did this end up in General Discussion?

Of course, I'm moving it to its proper place -- guess where.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2010, 09:49:25 AM »

While this is certainly an (important) additional data point to consider, it's by no means an infallible declaration or definition. It means that the Pope believed in BoD, as did St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus Liguori.

I've read a lot of their arguments, and I find them less than convincing. There's no overwhelming consensus from the Church Fathers that would testify to BoD being a revealed dogma. Later Fathers tend to slavishly follow Augustine (who himself appeared to go back and forth on the question). Several Fathers appear to have believed in BoB, but the context is unclear, and they tended to cite Our Lord's words referring to His Passion as a "baptism" of sorts--which obviously is misapplied because Jesus had no need of any baptism whatsoever. I have not seen a convincing theological argument in favor of BoB or BoD. St. Robert Bellarmine's major argument in favor of BoB was that the contrary "would seem too harsh". Not exactly a slam-dunk case by any means.

I remain open on this issue, but lean against explicit BoB and BoD--and certainly reject the implicit BoD of infidels.

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2010, 10:02:41 AM »

Here's something to consider. What else is baptism except the application of the Passion of Jesus Christ to the one baptized? It is a mystical participation in His death and resurrection. If this sacrament of water and words effects such a marvelous thing how could not a more perfect representation of the same death, martyrdom, also effect such a regeneration?

Jamie · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2010, 11:51:31 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

HOW did this end up in General Discussion?

Of course, I'm moving it to its proper place -- guess where.

Matthew: I put it here - I didn't realise i was meant to post it in a different section. Sorry.

Jamie · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2010, 11:56:48 AM »

Belloc · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2010, 11:58:54 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

What did he know???

He might just as well have been named Ignoramus III! :wink:

So he was not a valid Pope and hence, not to be listened to?