Author Topic: Holy Martyr Saint Victor (Read 1813 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** April 11, 2014, 06:10:08 AM »

At Braga, in Portugal, [about the year 300, under Diocletian,] the holy martyr Victor. He was only as yet preparing for baptism, when he refused to worship an idol, and with great faithfulness confessed Christ JESUS, for the which cause he was put to many torments and beheaded, and so obtained baptism in his own blood.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 11, 2014, 06:13:36 AM »

Dear St. Victor, please pray for the conversion of LoT to the True Faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** April 11, 2014, 06:18:41 AM »

You do realize, LoT, that it was extremely common during the era of Roman persecution for a catechumen to be baptized and yet continue to be considered a catechumen and continue in the appropriate instructions? That was precisely due to the fact that the early Church did not universally believed in BoB. If they did, this practice wouldn't exist because they would have considered it unnecessary. I'll try to dig up the text from the early Church (I think it was one of the Fathers) who stated that catechumens should be baptized before they're ready in any kind of danger but continue on as catechumens and continue to be instructed.

Just because a text says that a catechumen was martyred does not rule out that said catechumen was not also baptized.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 11, 2014, 06:19:41 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Dear St. Victor, please pray for the conversion of LoT to the True Faith.

I ask this because LoT is exploiting your holy death in order to undermine Church dogma.

Nishant · « **Reply #4 on:** April 11, 2014, 06:37:37 AM »

Right, John. There is not an iota of a doubt that all these catechumens, as is invariably recorded for us by all ancient authors, as was universally believed by the whole Church concerning these Saints who were venerated for centuries precisely with the understanding that they died as catechumens baptized in their own blood for Christ. The Feeneyite suggestion to the contrary is a novelty. Another source on the same.

From the Roman Martyrology: "Saint Victor: At Braga in Portugal, of Saint Victor, Martyr, who while still a catechumen refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy; wherefore after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off. Victor of Braga Martyr (Red Martyr): Died c. 300. In his chronicle, Vasaeus records that Saint Victor was baptized by blood. The catechumen was beheaded at Braga, Portugal, under Diocletian for refusing to sacrifice to idols (Benedictines, Husenbeth)."

St. Emerentiana - (Feast is January 23). From the Roman breviary: "A Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God."

St. Genesius of Arles, - From the CE: "A notary martyred under Maximianus in 303 or 308. Feast, 25 Aug. He is honoured as patron of notaries, and invoked against chilblains and scurf. The Acts (Acta SS., Aug., V, 123, and Ruinart, 559), attributed to St. Paulinus of Nola, state: Genesius, native of Arles, at first a soldier became known for his proficiency in writing, and was made secretary to the magistrate of Arles. While performing the duties of his office the decree of persecution against the Christians was read in his presence. Outraged in his ideas of justice, the young catechumen cast his tablets at the feet of the magistrate and fled. He was captured and executed, and thus received baptism in his own blood."

And the explanation of why the baptism of blood according to Tradition is even more glorious than the baptism of water,

Quote from: Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. Book V, Sec I, Concerning the Martyrs

(A compilation of writings from the Apostles and their immediate successors) "But let him who is vouchsafed the honour of martyrdom rejoice with joy in the Lord, as obtaining thereby so great a crown, and departing out of this life by his confession. Nay, though he be trot a catechumen, let him depart without trouble; for his suffering for Christ will be to him a more genuine baptism, because he does really die with Christ, but the rest only in a figure."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** April 11, 2014, 08:59:00 AM »

You do realize, LoT, that it was extremely common during the era of Roman persecution for a catechumen to be baptized and yet continue to be considered a catechumen and continue in the appropriate instructions? That was precisely due to the fact that the early Church did not universally believed in BoB. If they did, this practice wouldn't exist because they would have considered it unnecessary.

In fact, there was a Church canon out there that mandated the baptism of catechumens if there was any threat of persecution or martyrdom, even if they hadn't been fully instructed yet.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 11, 2014, 09:01:41 AM »

Regardless of what you may think about BoB, LoT is once again using this as smokescreen cover for his obstinate denial of EENS. These were people who intended to join the Catholic Church and believed in it, not pagans or infidels. Whenever their positions are shown to contradict Church dogma, they dig up examples of CATECHUMENS to prove that you don't have to believe in anything except the existence of God to be saved. Non Sequitur.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** April 11, 2014, 09:08:30 AM »

How can anyone hope to convince BODers of ANYTHING, when the BODers deny the clearest dogma there is? The BODers believe that anyone can be saved even if they have no explcit belief in Christ and the Trinity, AND not only that, they believe that someone can be saved who has no explcit desire to be baptized nor martyred, nor explcit desire to even be a Catholic! This belief of theirs is not taught by any Father, Doctor or Saint, and it is opposed to clear dogma of Florence, and St. Thomas, the Athanasian Creed etc., yet they pertinaciously still cling to it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convince people like this of ANYTHING when that is what they WANT/DESIRE to believe!

Quote from: bowler

The clear uncompromising teaching of the doctrine that one must at least believe explicitly in the Incarnation (=Christ) and the Trinity for salvation, is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without at least this doctrine, assented to absolutely, and the condemnation of the opposing view, Traditionalists have no case nor argument against anything in Vatican II. Anyone who says they "don't condemn" the opposite opinion, by the very act, approve it, and thus become like the salt that looses its flavor, neutralized, precisely where the enemies of the Church want them to be neutralized.

Quote
But whoever dares to say: “Outside the Church is no salvation”, ought to be driven from the State
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book IV, Ch. 8

( http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/rousseau/social-contract/ )

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Vatican I
The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.

This is why I have always held that the opinion that the existence of God as rewarder cannot suffice for supernatural faith. Vatican I here finishes off holding to that opinion once and for all.

It confirms the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, it was the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was clearly infallible decreed at the Council of Florence:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

Nishant · « **Reply #8 on:** April 11, 2014, 09:38:43 AM »

Bowler, what exactly is the point of you copy pasting the same (blatantly false) stuff in every single thread? This thread establishes that baptism of desire and blood is Catholic doctrine, and that it is a dogmatic fact that souls are saved in this way, by receiving the sacramental effect of baptism through desire and charity, of which there is none greater than shedding one's blood for love of Christ.

If you have any respect at all left for them, you should consider that every single Doctor of the Church post-Florence, like St. Robert, St. Alphonsus etc disagrees with you, not in what is true, but in what theological grade of certitude is to be ascribed to that truth.

Every single other theologian and authority recognizes that the real question to be studied here is whether explicit faith in Christ is necessary as a means or a precept.

It is not for you to establish, by your own theological efforts without any kind of supervision by others, nor approval by ecclesiastical authority, (leaving aside the fact that you evidently have no training for that kind of work) what grade of certitude to ascribe to propositions you dislike.

That is a task for the Doctors and the other approved teachers of the Church. Your job, which you have not done and have no intention of doing, is to sit at their feet and docilely learn from them.

Whereas no one since Florence has taught what you believe. That's because you made it up, on the self-invented pretext (yes, I know that is a modification of Fr. Wathen's words up above, I suppose the modification is a good thing) that traditional Catholicism would be impossible without it.

Quote from: Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis

“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?

The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…

But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2014, 09:41:43 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Bowler, what exactly is the point of you copy pasting the same (blatantly false) stuff in every single thread? This thread establishes that baptism of desire and blood is Catholic doctrine, and that it is a dogmatic fact that souls are saved in this way, by receiving the sacramental effect of baptism through desire and charity, of which there is none greater than shedding one's blood for love of Christ.

If you have any respect at all left for them, you should consider that every single Doctor of the Church post-Florence, like St. Robert, St. Alphonsus etc disagrees with you, not in what is true, but in what theological grade of certitude is to be ascribed to that truth.

Every single other theologian and authority recognizes that the real question to be studied here is whether explicit faith in Christ is necessary as a means or a precept.

It is not for you to establish, by your own theological efforts without any kind of supervision by others, nor approval by ecclesiastical authority, (leaving aside the fact that you evidently have no training for that kind of work) what grade of certitude to ascribe to propositions you dislike.

That is a task for the Doctors and the other approved teachers of the Church. Your job, which you have not done and have no intention of doing, is to sit at their feet and docilely learn from them.

Whereas no one since Florence has taught what you believe. That's because you made it up, on the self-invented pretext (yes, I know that is a modification of Fr. Wathen's words up above, I suppose the modification is a good thing) that traditional Catholicism would be impossible without it.

Quote from: Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis

“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?

The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…

But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.

Thank you very much for this quote Nishant and specifically for the quote from Saint Alphonsus.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2014, 09:47:01 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

This thread establishes that baptism of desire and blood is Catholic doctrine

Prescinding from whether these examples establish BoD, they have nothing to do with BoB. That's another fallacy from the BoDers; they claim that examples of BoB prove BoD. In fact, some of the Church Fathers who believed in BoB EXPLICITLY rejected BoD. While one can USE BoB to argue in favor of BoD, they are not identical.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2014, 09:59:35 AM »

Fixed this (reversed the acronyms above):

Prescinding from whether these examples establish BoB, they have nothing to do with BoD. That's another fallacy from the BoDers; they claim that examples of BoB prove BoD. In fact, some of the Church Fathers who believed in BoB EXPLICITLY rejected BoD. While one can USE BoB to argue in favor of BoD, they are not identical.

Nishant · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2014, 10:00:05 AM »

Quote

While one can USE BoB to argue in favor of BoD, they are not identical.

I grant that. But whether it is the Dimonds, or Fr. Feeney, all deny that the sacramental effect of baptism, in a way sufficient for salvation, can be received in desire in any case, even martyrs.

The instances mentioned certainly disprove that.

St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus et al tell us that baptism of blood is only the most perfect form of baptism of desire, because baptism of desire is an act of love of God or Christ, and (as Jesus Himself said,) martyrdom is the greatest act of love.

Even the medieval heretic Peter Abelard (who held heretical opinions concerning the Trinity by the way) did not deny that by his time it was recognized as certain that souls are saved by baptism of blood. He only tried to deny baptism of desire. St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure and others set out to refute his contention regarding baptism of desire.

Theologians also cite the medieval decrees of Pope Innocent II and II as decidedly settling the question.

But you know all this, and we've discussed it back and forth a hundred times without any fruit.

As far as baptism of desire in the annals of the early Church is concerned, St. Eusebius in his tome on ecclesiastical history records this for us, "And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire"

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2014, 11:01:34 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
While one can USE BoB to argue in favor of BoD, they are not identical.

I grant that. But whether it is the Dimonds, or Fr. Feeney, all deny that the sacramental effect of baptism, in a way sufficient for salvation, can be received in desire in any case, even martyrs.

The instances mentioned certainly disprove that.

St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus et al tell us that baptism of blood is only the most perfect form of baptism of desire, because baptism of desire is an act of love of God or Christ, and (as Jesus Himself said,) martyrdom is the greatest act of love.

Even the medieval heretic Peter Abelard (who held heretical opinions concerning the Trinity by the way) did not deny that by his time it was recognized as certain that souls are saved by baptism of blood. He only tried to deny baptism of desire. St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure and others set out to refute his contention regarding baptism of desire.

Theologians also cite the medieval decrees of Pope Innocent II and II as decidedly settling the question.

But you know all this, and we've discussed it back and forth a hundred times without any fruit.

As far as baptism of desire in the annals of the early Church is concerned, St. Eusebius in his tome on ecclesiastical history records this for us, "And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire"

Abelard was the only "Feeneyite" in the history of the Church until the 1940's. And only in this country which prides itself in individual thinking. The right to be different than what has been established.

bowler · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2014, 12:10:19 PM »

Can anyone provide an example (from the martyrology) of BOB in the last 500 years, 1000 years, 1500 years? I don't know of any. So what is the point of debating about a theory that has not saved anyone in 1500 years?

99% of BODers do not even believe that an explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom is necessary for salvation. Moreover, 99% believe/do not condemn the teaching that someone can be saved without explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. So what is the point of debating BOB with a BODer?

It is like debating with an atheist about the validity of the Novus Ordo mass. Ridiculous.

If you can get a BODer to condemn the teaching that anyone can be saved even if they have no explicit desire for baptism or martyrdom or to be a Catholic, nor explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, if you can get them to condemn that, that ALONE would be a miracle!