Author Topic: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism (Read 778 times)

Maria Dolorosa · « **Reply #20 on:** **Today** at 12:18:25 PM »

I cannot remain silent about the way St. Thomas Aquinas is by so many and repeatedly so, incorrectly perceived, regarding his teaching on the Immaculate Conception.

He was not in error because of unsound theology or philosophy. I will show you.

The images are taken from "The Three Greatest Prayers", a commentary on the Our Father, Hail Mary, and the Apostle's Creed, by St. Thomas Aquinas. https://archive.org/details/threegreatestpra00thom_0/page/34/mode/2up

Maria Dolorosa · « **Reply #21 on:** **Today** at 12:37:11 PM »

Again, I am not arguing, only sharing.

Excerpts from "The Authority of St. Thomas"
https://archive.org/details/AuthorityOfSt.ThomasRamirezJacobusM.O.P/mode/2up

St. Pius V, who declared him a Doctor of the Universal Church, recognized in Thomas "the most brilliant light of the Church," whose works are:

the most certain rule of Christian doctrine by which he enlightened the Apostolic Church in answering conclusively numberless errors..., which illumination has often been evident in the past and recently stood forth prominently in the decrees of the Council of Trent. He also said of Aquinas that "his theological doctrine, accepted by the Catholic Church, outshines every other as being safer and more secure." — p. 23

Pope Leo XIII:

This is the greatest glory of Thomas, altogether his own and shared with no other Catholic Doctor, that the Fathers of Trent, in order to proceed in an orderly fashion during the conclave, desired to have opened upon the altar together with the Scriptures and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas whence they could draw counsel, reasons and answers. — p. 26

Shrewd Operator · « **Reply #22 on:** **Today** at 01:13:57 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 10:48:31 AM

As St. Thomas, the greatest of all the theologians was wrong about the Immaculate Conception, the same is to be said about all the others who taught salvation through faith alone, which is a BOD - we know they were wrong because of the teaching of Trent.
Points to consider.......

1) It is with certainty of faith that we know that you, me, and all those who have ever been and ever will be baptized, are baptized via the Divine Providence. Almighty God *always* provides us with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it - always.

2) As such, you must believe that if God can arrange for you and everyone else to be baptized, that it is by that very same Providence that He can and will arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it and enter the Church.

3) When God made the sacrament a requirement for heaven, God bound Himself to provide the sacrament to all who desire it - even if that means a miracle - remember: what is a miracle to God? Nothing, nothing at all.

4) The only way a BOD works, is when God purposely withdraws His providence from the event. this means that with the divine providence, a BOD fails, without it, it works.

5) The condemned doctrine says that the recipient of a BOD saves themself, this idea is known as salvation through faith alone, which again, the Church condemns.

6) There is no getting around any of this if a BOD is to actually be salvific. You have got to take God *completely* out of the formula, which is what the doctrine of a BOD does.

You seem to hold a false dichotomy about Divine Providence. As if everyone He wills to be Baptized will be provided with all the ceremonies, in the cathedral on the next Sunday. Those who are baptized on Tuesday, or on their deathbed, on on the battlefield, or by a non-Catholic baptizer, or in any worse circuмstances are clearly being disfavored by God.

If all BOD and BOB are real, then it would make sense that God's Providence would allow precisely such circuмstances in order to demonstrate to all non-Catholics that they need not fear any circuмstance that could prevent them from receiving salvation when in any dire need.

We see this exact kind of Providence in the case of the Scapular. The Scapular says, "Whoever dies wearing this Scapular will not suffer eternal fire".

It does not say, "Whoever dies wearing this Scapular will certainly get his sacraments first".

If God's Providence works this way for a sacramental, why would He be more demanding for a sacrament for those in danger?

What happens if a non-Catholic puts on a scapular to save his soul, lest he should die without finding someone to baptize him, and then so dies?

Stubborn · « **Reply #23 on:** **Today** at 03:47:00 PM »

Quote from: Shrewd Operator on Today at 01:13:57 PM

You seem to hold a false dichotomy about Divine Providence. As if everyone He wills to be Baptized will be provided with all the ceremonies, in the cathedral on the next Sunday. Those who are baptized on Tuesday, or on their deathbed, on on the battlefield, or by a non-Catholic baptizer, or in any worse circuмstances are clearly being disfavored by God.

If all BOD and BOB are real, then it would make sense that God's Providence would allow precisely such circuмstances in order to demonstrate to all non-Catholics that they need not fear any circuмstance that could prevent them from receiving salvation when in any dire need.

We see this exact kind of Providence in the case of the Scapular. The Scapular says, "Whoever dies wearing this Scapular will not suffer eternal fire".

It does not say, "Whoever dies wearing this Scapular will certainly get his sacraments first".

If God's Providence works this way for a sacramental, why would He be more demanding for a sacrament for those in danger?

What happens if a non-Catholic puts on a scapular to save his soul, lest he should die without finding someone to baptize him, and then so dies?

I suggest you read Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence. It is a fantastic little book that you will find is well worth the time.

I like this quote from it:
"Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it. This statement must he taken absolutely of everything with the exception of sin. 'Nothing occurs by chance in the whole course of our lives' is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, 'and God intervenes everywhere.'"

Re the Scapular; Unlike the scapular, Our Lord does not promise salvation to all who are baptized, only that they can never be saved without it.

It would only be comparable if the promise of the scapular was: "Unless you die wearing this Scapular, you will not enter heaven." If that were the case, would you think dying without the the scapular but with a desire for the scapular would save you? Would you then insist that the Church teaches a Scapular of desire? I'm just showing how ridiculous it can get - and for what? The only possible reason that makes any sense is to save those outside of the Church.

You must believe that, as the above quote teaches, that God provides that which he made a requirement for all who desire it - period.

The Church made attending Mass a requirement every Sunday and Holy Day, but if the Church does not provide the Mass for you then you are not obligated and do not sin. When it comes to baptism, the difference is that there is no possible scenario in this world or the next where God does not or cannot provide the sacrament that He made a requirement for all who desire it.

If you can think of any circuмstance or event that would impeded God from providing that which He made a requirement and wants to provide, please post it.

Cera · « **Reply #24 on:** **Today** at 04:04:18 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Yesterday at 05:12:52 AM

as soon as the new convert finds out what is necessary for salvation, before anything else they implore to be baptized first, in fact right now, on the spot, immediately, before another hour passes lest they die before they receive the sacrament, and because if they ever did deal with a new convert, then they would know that the convert is not at all, or suspicious, or at least not so easily convinced of a BOD should they die prior to receiving the sacrament.

That's a sweet emotional argument. But not true.

see this:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent fully accepted baptism administered by heretics and infidels, provided that those who administered the sacrament intended to do what the Catholic Church did [does]. That is, even heretics, let alone other Christians. In Part 2: Baptism, it deals with the three "gradations" of those who may administer it.

Quote

Those who may administer baptism, in case of necessity, but without its solemn ceremonies, hold the third and last place; and in this class are included all, even the laity, men and women, to whatever sect they may belong. This power extends, in case of necessity, even to Jews, infidels, and heretics; provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic Church does in that act of her ministry. Already established by the decrees of the ancient Fathers and Councils, these things have been again confirmed by the Council of Trent, which denounces anathema against those who presume to say, " that baptism, even when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism."

As the Catechism of Trent says, that practice was "already established by the decrees of the ancient Fathers," that is, the earliest Councils of the Church.
It is an immemorial custom.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism (Read 778 times)

Maria Dolorosa

Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism

Maria Dolorosa

Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism

Shrewd Operator

Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism

Stubborn

Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism

Cera

Re: The Desire/Intention/Wish/Will to Receive Baptism