FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/ar...roofed.pdf (PDF)

So as not to derail that thread, this is taken from This thread, Fr. Says:
As I point out in the article, the underlying difficulty with Feeneyism is that it rejects the principles that form the very foundation for the science of Catholic theology.

I'm sure I've seen this link in the past but for whatever reason read it as just another link in favor of BOD. In some ways that's what this is, however, I do not think that anyone who disagrees with BOD, will disagree with what Fr. wrote in the link.

My disagreement with the link comes from what is never mentioned in the link. By that I mean there is no mention of which Teaching Authority is binding on us when the Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaching clearly contradicts certainly infallible teaching.

I understand those who believe in BOD and/or their interpretation of what BOD is, will say that there are no contradictions, so I will offer what I believe the Baptism of Desire is - -

Salvation via BOD is when salvation is granted to an unbaptized person with perfect contrition for his sins, and who also desires baptism, dies due to  an unexpected accident which made it impossible for that person to be Sacramentally baptized before his death. 

Is this BOD?
(12-29-2011, 07:44 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]My disagreement with the link comes from what is never mentioned in the link. By that I mean there is no mention of which Teaching Authority is binding on us when the Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaching clearly contradicts certainly infallible teaching.

Father Cekada's position, I believe, is such a possibility is impossible. 
(12-29-2011, 08:06 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-29-2011, 07:44 AM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]My disagreement with the link comes from what is never mentioned in the link. By that I mean there is no mention of which Teaching Authority is binding on us when the Universal Ordinary Magisterium teaching clearly contradicts certainly infallible teaching.

Father Cekada's position, I believe, is such a possibility is impossible. 

Agreed, but I think first I'd like to get a ruling on if my interpretation of BOD is correct or are there variations?
Stubborn- I think that would be a working definition, yes.  It has meant things to me over time, started as a very wide, all encompassing "just try your best and you'll be fine" sort of thing when I first started really getting into the faith.

Now, I believe in BOD but the only person that I can ever say to have experienced it was St. Dismus.  He was never baptized and yet Christ promise him a spot in Heaven.  Unless scripture is wrong.

BOD is a tough thing to discuss for a couple reasons, but I think the main reason is that it's existence is a haven for modernists to essentially destroy any reality of EENS.  That's why modernists love the idea of BOD because they can twist it to mean that Catholicism is unnecesary for salvation.  On the other hand, a lot of trads reject it simply on the principle of how it's used by modernsits, and not what it actally means by itself. 

I accept BOD as a very rare occurance.  And the only reason I do is because it's in scripture.  I think that for the majority of us, we should look at Matthew 7:7

Matthew 7:7 Wrote:Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. [8] For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

Those who seek baptism will find it.  Those who desire it will be given it. 
(12-29-2011, 10:10 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Stubborn- I think that would be a working definition, yes.  It has meant things to me over time, started as a very wide, all encompassing "just try your best and you'll be fine" sort of thing when I first started really getting into the faith.

Now, I believe in BOD but the only person that I can ever say to have experienced it was St. Dismus.  He was never baptized and yet Christ promise him a spot in Heaven.  Unless scripture is wrong.

Well, because Our Lord did not institute the Sacrament till basically just before His Ascension, St. Dismas is an Old Testament saint who died before the Sacrament was instituted, so we can't use his reward as being from BOD - same goes for the Holy Innocents.

(12-29-2011, 10:10 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]BOD is a tough thing to discuss for a couple reasons, but I think the main reason is that it's existence is a haven for modernists to essentially destroy any reality of EENS.  That's why modernists love the idea of BOD because they can twist it to mean that Catholicism is unnecesary for salvation.  On the other hand, a lot of trads reject it simply on the principle of how it's used by modernsits, and not what it actally means by itself.

EXACTLY. Thank you! This is why I prefer to start off understanding what BOD even is - far as I know, there are at least 5 or 6 different definitions out there.  If we can't get one authoritative definition, I personally believe that the argument in favor of BOD should end right there. 

(12-29-2011, 10:10 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]I accept BOD as a very rare occurance.  And the only reason I do is because it's in scripture.  I think that for the majority of us, we should look at Matthew 7:7

Matthew 7:7 Wrote:Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. [8] For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

Those who seek baptism will find it.  Those who desire it will be given it. 

Not sure what you mean here. According to the above Scripture, whoever sincerely desires the sacrament will receive the sacrament before they die. I like to ask - would God deny one who sincerely needs and desires baptism due to Him being too busy feeding the birds? (Mat 6:26)

The Haydock says of Ver. 8. Whatever we ask necessary to salvation with humility, fervour, perseverance, and other due circumstances, we may be assured God will grant when it is best for us. If we do not obtain what we pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment.
"With these wise words [Pope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis Christi, 103] reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion.  But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved.  It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity.  Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith" (Holy Office, Suprema Haec Sacra, 8 August 1949).

Baptism of Desire involves the possession of divine faith and perfect charity by a non-baptized person.  It is something received.  The Baltimore Catechism states that one receives it when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for salvation.  Very Rev. Tanquerey also states included in BOD is "the general resolution to fulfill all the precepts of God" (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, p. 228.).

More than once I have seen the words of Christ, "He who loves me shall be loved by my Father," used in support of the efficacy of perfect charity (i.e. the Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon J.M. Hervé and the aforementioned manual).

The problem in your original post, Stubborn, is your assumption that your interpretation of Trent is correct while simultaneously the unanimous interpretation of Catholic theologians from the the time of Trent up to the eve of the Second Vatican Council, a span of nearly 400 years, has been incorrect.  Evidence long before and ever after the Council of Trent shows the Church's acceptance of BOD, so it seems highly unlikely that Trent infallibly ruled it out.  You should accept the possibility that your lone interpretation is the incorrect one.
This is what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say:

Quote:Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.  This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.

But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries  where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost.  This explains why the Church has always sent missionaries into all countries of the world, why thousands of them have suffered martyrdom. If salvation can be found in any religion, why cross the seas, why subject oneself to unhealthy climates, to a harsh life, to sickness and an early death? From the martyrdom of St. Stephen onwards (the first to give his life for Christ, and for this reason his feast is the day after Christmas), the Apostles set out to spread the Good News throughout the Mediterranean countries.
 
(12-29-2011, 12:51 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]The problem in your original post, Stubborn, is your assumption that your interpretation of Trent is correct while simultaneously the unanimous interpretation of Catholic theologians from the the time of Trent up to the eve of the Second Vatican Council, a span of nearly 400 years, has been incorrect.  Evidence long before and ever after the Council of Trent shows the Church's acceptance of BOD, so it seems highly unlikely that Trent infallibly ruled it out.  You should accept the possibility that your lone interpretation is the incorrect one.

My assumption that my interpretation of Trent is correct is because it says what it says. Why others read it and see what is not there is beyond me - regardless, in the interest of seeking for the truth,  I am willing and ready to accept that I am wrong - but there ain't nobody going to convince me that Trent says there is such a thing as BOD - much less that Trent defines it.
No where in any authoritative Church teachings is salvation without baptism taught. And if perchance I am wrong - and I certainly am open to that distinct possibility - no one has yet been able to produce any evidence that such a teaching exists. IF it exists at all, it would contradict what has already been declared infallibly, which is why I say that it does not exist. Which is why I asked to which authority are we bound when there is a contradiction.   

So it seems that you are saying  that there is not one definitive definition of what the BOD is, yet the fathers hold unanimous in the belief of it. Ok, if that's what you're saying, then it makes as much sense as anything I suppose.

I guess my first question would be, how is it possible to have a unanimous belief about something that has numerous different definitions? - or  -
is the definition I supplied in the OP the same definition of BOD that all the fathers believe unanimously? - or -
what is the definition they all believe unanimously?

(12-29-2011, 02:47 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]My assumption that my interpretation of Trent is correct is because it says what it says. Why others read it and see what is not there is beyond me - regardless, in the interest of seeking for the truth,  I am willing and ready to accept that I am wrong - but there ain't nobody going to convince me that Trent says there is such a thing as BOD - much less that Trent defines it.
No where in any authoritative Church teachings is salvation without baptism taught. And if perchance I am wrong - and I certainly am open to that distinct possibility - no one has yet been able to produce any evidence that such a teaching exists. IF it exists at all, it would contradict what has already been declared infallibly, which is why I say that it does not exist. Which is why I asked to which authority are we bound when there is a contradiction. 

Excellent post. No one has ever been able to show me that BOD has been formally defined. That's because it hasn't been. Water baptism has, on the other hand, been formally defined and it is an infallible teaching of the Church. Which am I required to believe? The infallible teaching of the Church.  

(12-29-2011, 01:57 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]This is what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say:

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

The above quote is confusing imo, however, the last sentence is plain enough  - and, to me, it obviously contradicts Trent: If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Now, whoever chooses to say that the above two different requirements for Baptism are clearly in agreement, please, enlighten us all. Other than that, to which authority and teaching are we bound?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27