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
(01-22-2012, 05:34 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ][quote='JoniCath' pid='960708' dateline='1327267354']

Remember the good thief. He admitted that he deserved to be on the cross, yet he asked Christ, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom".

Did Christ ask him "have
you beenBaptized. No, He said to the thief, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
You are so right that while we must be "in awe" of Christ, there is an unhealthy fear that can communicate itself to others. I admire you for realizing this & trying to see God in ALL of His Glory........His justice, yes..........but also His Mercy.

You are so right!
......never mind that Our Lord had not yet instituted baptism when He told St. Dismas (the good thief) that. Try to remember that He did not command the necessity of water until sometime before He ascended into heaven.

[/quote[size=10pt][size=10pt]] For crying out loud, God is not bound by the restraints of time. He exists in all times, in all places......at the same time. Also remember: : "As it was in the beginning, it is now & forever shall be.     :mrwinky: :mrwinky:[/size][/size]
I didn't realize that St. Alphonsius, St. Pius V and St. Robert Bellarmine were merely peddling the "Spirit of Trent" rather than the authentic Concilliar teachings read within a Hermeneutic of Counter-Reform in Continuity.  :LOL:
(01-23-2012, 02:28 AM)JoniCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2012, 05:34 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2012, 05:22 PM)JoniCath Wrote: [ -> ]Remember the good thief. He admitted that he deserved to be on the cross, yet he asked Christ, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom".

Did Christ ask him "have
you beenBaptized. No, He said to the thief, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
You are so right that while we must be "in awe" of Christ, there is an unhealthy fear that can communicate itself to others. I admire you for realizing this & trying to see God in ALL of His Glory........His justice, yes..........but also His Mercy.

You are so right!
......never mind that Our Lord had not yet instituted baptism when He told St. Dismas (the good thief) that. Try to remember that He did not command the necessity of water until sometime before He ascended into heaven.

[size=10pt] For crying out loud, God is not bound by the restraints of time. He exists in all times, in all places......at the same time. Also remember: : "As it was in the beginning, it is now & forever shall be.      :mrwinky: :mrwinky:[/size][/size]

It is very true that God is not bound by *any* restraints - it is we who are bound, not Him.

It is we who are bound to follow the laws He made for our salvation. Now when you meet Our Lord, you can ask Him why He made a law that was impossible for some people to follow - let us all hope He tells you He did that because He can.
[quote='Stubborn' pid='960517' dateline='1327253518']
In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.) - - - - - - - - FYI, "Fidei Prox" means, "almost a dogma" - or "approximately a dogma". We *are not* bound to believe fidei prox.

I know well what Sent fidei prox means AND what it doesn't mean.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thec...ummary.htm  (scroll down to # 57).


The whole "in case of emergency" imaginary scenario neglects or  perverts the the doctrine of Divine Providence entirely.

ONLY if you are confining your thoughts to a certain time, again. One of the Sacred Heart nuns who taught in the Academy I attended, lent a copy of her thesis to me.
It was a history of Catholicism in our city. It told of a time when we were lucky to have a priest up here from St. Louis TWICE A YEAR. Most people who had healthy babies just waited for the priest to Baptize them. A FEW Baptized their own babies. As for Baptizing the Indians we were converting then..well they, themselves seemed to need the ceremony, so they waited for the priest. Some of the babies & the Indians died before the priest came. However, their DESIRE to be Baptized saved them. BOD confers Sanctifying Grace.
(01-23-2012, 03:19 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't realize that St. Alphonsius, St. Pius V and St. Robert Bellarmine were merely peddling the "Spirit of Trent" rather than the authentic Concilliar teachings read within a Hermeneutic of Counter-Reform in Continuity.  :LOL:

They were actually "traditionalists"  :LOL: they didn't follow the "innovations" of Trent.
(01-23-2012, 08:56 AM)JoniCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-22-2012, 01:31 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.) - - - - - - - - FYI, "Fidei Prox" means, "almost a dogma" - or "approximately a dogma". We *are not* bound to believe fidei prox.

I know well what Sent fidei prox means AND what it doesn't mean.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thec...ummary.htm  (scroll down to # 57).


The whole "in case of emergency" imaginary scenario neglects or  perverts the the doctrine of Divine Providence entirely.

ONLY if you are confining your thoughts to a certain time, again. One of the Sacred Heart nuns who taught in the Academy I attended, lent a copy of her thesis to me.
It was a history of Catholicism in our city. It told of a time when we were lucky to have a priest up here from St. Louis TWICE A YEAR. Most people who had healthy babies just waited for the priest to Baptize them. A FEW Baptized their own babies. As for Baptizing the Indians we were converting then..well they, themselves seemed to need the ceremony, so they waited for the priest. Some of the babies & the Indians died before the priest came. However, their DESIRE to be Baptized saved them. BOD confers Sanctifying Grace.

I'm not confining anything.

Our Lord did not make the Sacrament obligatory for salvation till sometime just prior to His Ascension into Heaven. Some say He instituted the Sacrament at Pentecost, whatever - one thing for certain is that Baptism was not obligatory before His Crucifixion...............to many people even today it is still not obligatory thanks to BOD.

As such, "Paradise" did not mean heaven, it meant purgatory or the Limbo of the Just - referred to as "hell" in the Apostles Creed.

You feel free to judge and reward salvation to unbaptized Indians etc. all you want - seems silly since you don't even know if you're going to make it - no?

From your link.........A Summary of the Dogmas and Teachings of the Catholic Church - - -  Taken from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, available from TAN Books.

The link is good - thanks!

255) The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. certa.)

295) Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. (De fide.)

296) The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water. (De fide.)

297) The materia proxima of the Sacrament of Baptism is the ablution, by physical contact, of the body with water. (Sent. certa.)

298) The form of Baptism consists in the words of the minister which accompany it and more closely determine it.

299) Baptism confers the grace of justification. (De fide.)

300) Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal. (De fide.)

301) Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated. (De fide.)

302) Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.)

303) In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei. prox)

304) Baptism can be validly administered by anyone. (De fide.)

305) Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised. (De fide.)



(01-23-2012, 01:02 AM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]1. Is it a necessity of precept or a necessity of means?
2. Was St. Alphonsus unorthodox? a heretic? a post-tridentine heretic Doctor of the Church?

1.  It is both, as we have precept binding us to be baptized (Acts 2:38) and precept binding the Bishops and priests to baptize (Matt. 28:19)...and teaching of the Roman Pontiffs from Ecumenical Councils which binds the Sacrament of Baptism as a necessity of means.

2.  St. Alphonsus was neither unorthodox nor an heretic, but neither was he inerrant nor infallible.  Besides that, I have yet to see any credible evidence that he has taught "baptism of desire."

-- Nicole
(01-23-2012, 11:46 AM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2012, 01:02 AM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]1. Is it a necessity of precept or a necessity of means?
2. Was St. Alphonsus unorthodox? a heretic? a post-tridentine heretic Doctor of the Church?

1.  It is both, as we have precept binding us to be baptized (Acts 2:38) and precept binding the Bishops and priests to baptize (Matt. 28:19)...and teaching of the Roman Pontiffs from Ecumenical Councils which binds the Sacrament of Baptism as a necessity of means.

2.  St. Alphonsus was neither unorthodox nor an heretic, but neither was he inerrant nor infallible.  Besides that, I have yet to see any credible evidence that he has taught "baptism of desire."

-- Nicole

1. If it is both, it is necessity of means (according to you).
2. St. Alphonsus on Baptism of Desire: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.). If Trent absolutely prescribes Baptism of Water as a necessity of means and dogmatically declares it to be so, then St. Alphonsus was not only fallible, he was a heretic; this is the crux of the matter, if he cannot hold per Trent (supposedly) the belief of BOD and he does, that makes him, at the very least, a material heretic (with his level of knowledge, it's unlikely material and rather formal), nothing more.
(01-23-2012, 02:02 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2012, 11:46 AM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2012, 01:02 AM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]1. Is it a necessity of precept or a necessity of means?
2. Was St. Alphonsus unorthodox? a heretic? a post-tridentine heretic Doctor of the Church?

1.  It is both, as we have precept binding us to be baptized (Acts 2:38) and precept binding the Bishops and priests to baptize (Matt. 28:19)...and teaching of the Roman Pontiffs from Ecumenical Councils which binds the Sacrament of Baptism as a necessity of means.

2.  St. Alphonsus was neither unorthodox nor an heretic, but neither was he inerrant nor infallible.  Besides that, I have yet to see any credible evidence that he has taught "baptism of desire."

-- Nicole

1. If it is both, it is necessity of means (according to you).
2. St. Alphonsus on Baptism of Desire: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.). If Trent absolutely prescribes Baptism of Water as a necessity of means and dogmatically declares it to be so, then St. Alphonsus was not only fallible, he was a heretic; this is the crux of the matter, if he cannot hold per Trent (supposedly) the belief of BOD and he does, that makes him, at the very least, a material heretic (with his level of knowledge, it's unlikely material and rather formal), nothing more.

Is St. Liguori referring to "saved" in the same sense that the Ninevites were "saved" temporally by their penance only later to be destroyed by God?  or "saved" in the sense that at death one enters into the beatific vision?  and If the second is answered in the affirmative, then what happens when a person sins mortally after his "baptism of desire"?  does he once again baptize himself by desire and experience the remission of that sin?  if he can continually re-baptize himself by his desire for the laver of regeneration after sinning mortally, what sense is there ever to have recourse to the sacraments, least of all Baptism and Penance?

-- Nicole
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23