FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
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
I am sure that is what St. Thomas thought about the Immaculate conception...

What would a list of theologians and fathers change your mind?

I have a list and a bunch of quotes, if you really want them...
(02-01-2012, 08:41 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-01-2012, 08:29 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]The analogy is faulty, because Our Lord said, I say to "YOU" not, I say to all men. The YOU is the crowd following him, who already expressed faith in him, AND his disciples.

The analogy breaks down after that.

Now, explain to me, how do we understand John 3:5 in regards to BOD? Our Lord was not ignorant, what did he MEAN with these words if some are saved apart from water baptism? How are we to take them?

From Aquinas:



Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Your problem isn't really that problematic.

Those of us who argue agasinst BoD are actually in agreement with St. Thomas. He is maintaining that there is but ONE Baptism and  it's of water which contains also the blood and the spirit, therefore the sacrament of Baptism consists of water, blood and spirt and so the three remain undivided and unseperated.
BoD seperates what St. Thomas states remains undivided.
Just like Pope St. Leo Said, DOGMATICALLY.

What part of Dogma is lost on people here?
(02-01-2012, 10:51 PM)columb Wrote: [ -> ]From Aquinas:

"St. Thomas" Wrote:Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Those of us who argue agasinst BoD are actually in agreement with St. Thomas. He is maintaining that there is but ONE Baptism and  it's of water which contains also the blood and the spirit, therefore the sacrament of Baptism consists of water, blood and spirt and so the three remain undivided and unseperated.
BoD seperates what St. Thomas states remains undivided.

You are reading St. Thomas Aquinas very much out of context.  In the same article as the above  he makes it as clear as glass that he is supporting Baptism of Desire.

"St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica III Q66 A11 [b Wrote:Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?[/b]"]

(This is only part of the article.  You should read it in full: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm)

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

But his "I  answer that " in the same article includes this (making it clear that Baptism of Desire (same as Baptism of Repentence) can be received without water):

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

Things can be one in one sense and three in another (eg the Trinity).  (those who deny Baptism of Desire don't like distinctions). Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Blood (from Christ's Passion) and from the Holy Ghost (which is also given in Baptism of Desire). Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire both necessarily imply the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism.  These three are one in these ways, and in these respects cannot be divided as both St. Thomas and St. Leo are saying.  But they can be received separately; in a second respect they are three - as this article is explaining.

Simple breakdown of St. Thomas' article:

The title of the article is Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
St Thomas' answer is YES.

Objection 1 is made by St. Thomas'  opponent (Baptism is one, and so there cannot be 3 kinds).
Reply to Objection 1 is made by St. Thomas (although there are 3 kinds of baptism, they are very much united in one baptism).

"I answer that" gives St. Thomas main argument that there are 3 kinds.
This is not the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers.

Blood, water and spirit are inseparable and indivisible. As Per Pope St. Leo I.

lol. BOD'ers can't take the fact that individual theologians or the consent of theologians from a SINGLE ERA don't constitute the teaching of the church!

They totally ignore the consent of the Fathers, which Trent and Vatican I and all the Fathers teach NOT TO DO!
Gregory,

From another post: (borrowing from you and SouthpawLink)
(02-01-2012, 03:34 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-01-2012, 01:46 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously though, the key reason BOD will NEVER be declared dogma is that it has NEVER been unanimously taught. It is an opinion of men.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception remained at the level of opinion until the late seventeenth century (8 December 1661).  There was never a universal consensus of the Fathers or Theologians on it, except that it was unanimously accepted by the Magisterium on the eve of its definition (2 February 1849).  So, it went from "opinion" to "definable" in under 200 years.

Baptism of desire, on the other hand, has been around for at least the last 1,000 years, and has the unanimous consent of the Scholastics.  It has been taught by Pontiffs, Doctors, the Roman Martyrology, the Roman Ritual, Canon Law and various catechisms, especially that of Trent.  Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus seals the deal with its teaching on catechumens being able to have perfect charity, be justified, have the remission of sins and not be damned.

Of course you disagree with the second paragraph, but how do you answer the question comparing Baptism of Desire with the Immaculate Conception? Would you have said "the Immaculate Conception will NEVER be declared dogma [since] it has NEVER been unanimously taught. It is an opinion of men"?
No, not at all.

The reason is that the immaculate conception has been essentially taught throughout the entire history of the church and maintained PRINCIPALLY IN THE BYZANTINE LITURGICAL TRADITION.

Plus, the western tradition of the passing of Mary from the fourth century....
(02-02-2012, 01:05 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]No, not at all.

The reason is that the immaculate conception has been essentially taught throughout the entire history of the church and maintained PRINCIPALLY IN THE BYZANTINE LITURGICAL TRADITION.

Plus, the western tradition of the passing of Mary from the fourth century....

The history of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a long and complicated one, and complete agreement on it -- even as an opinion -- didn't occur until around 1661 (Pope Alexander VII, Sollicitudo omnium eccl.: Denz. 1100.), but it remained open to disagreement up through 1483 (Pope Sixtus IV, Grave Nimis: Denz. 735).

Here is a fairly comprehensive look at the Fathers' teaching on Our Lady's sanctity: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Immac...iology.htm
The point is BOD has no such consensus. It has FAR LESS support than the immaculate conception ever did, so why would anyone expect it to be so quickly condemned?

Bod has NO:

Liturgical tradition. Just the opposite, Catechumens were traditionally given a non-christian burial.

Unanimous support from the Fathers: Augustine asserts it once earlier in his career, then denies it later. St. Ambrose's eulogy on the Emperor Valentinian is vague and capable of an interpretation perfectly in harmony with his principle teaching on the issue. Those are the ONLY TWO saints that give ANYTHING close to a support of Baptism of Desire in the Fathers.

Dogmatic definitions. Just the opposite, we are Told Baptism of Water, and the Sanctifying blood of the redeemer, and the Sanctifying Power of the Holy Spirit are one and indivisible, and INSEPARABLE from each other IN A DOGMATIC LETTER. No Water, no blood and no spirit. Again, Trent says the words of our Lord are no metapphor in John 3:5, but are literal and apply ONLY to sacramental water baptism. How is this NOT the death knell for this faithless teaching?

Ordinary Universal Magisterial teaching. It is NOT PART of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. There is no unanimous consent among the fathers, none teach it as REVEALED BY GOD and binding on the faithful, even the post-scholastic Theologians do not agree as to the degree of theological certainty of the proposition, and certainly they do NOT unanimously teach it as a truth revealed by God binding on all the faithful.

Popes teaching it? None. Before you say Pius Xii 1949 letter, it was not ever formally registered as an act of the apostolic see and as such is not to be considered as such.


What possible hope can you have for a doctrine such as this?
Gregory I,
I shall try to answer you tomorrow, but I fear we may be going around in circles.  God bless!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23