01-03-2012, 08:43 AM
I always thought God would furnish His elect with actual baptism.
It doesn't make much sense He wouldn't do so.
It doesn't make much sense He wouldn't do so.
Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
|
01-03-2012, 08:43 AM
I always thought God would furnish His elect with actual baptism.
It doesn't make much sense He wouldn't do so. (01-03-2012, 08:43 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I always thought God would furnish His elect with actual baptism. That God proves His goodness by executing excellence in the sacraments (according to St. Thomas) is just one more way by which He manifests His glory. It is a means by which He proves His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Question 64, Article 3 Wrote:I answer that, Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, both as God and as man, but not in the same way. For, as God, He works in the sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to the inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently, but instrumentally. For it has been stated (48, 1,6; 49, 1) that Christ's Passion which belongs to Him in respect of His human nature, is the cause of justification, both meritoriously and efficiently, not as the principal cause thereof, or by His own authority, but as an instrument, in so far as His humanity is the instrument of His Godhead, as stated above (13, 2,3; 19, 1). St. Ambrose actually recorded a case of baptism of desire pertaining to one of his catechumens. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I can find the passage when I am home later tonight.
01-03-2012, 10:20 AM
(01-03-2012, 09:08 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: St. Ambrose actually recorded a case of baptism of desire pertaining to one of his catechumens. Yes, I'm acquainted with that story. However, I wonder if St. Ambrose had some sort of divine revelation concerning the eternal fate of his catechumen or was just expression his opinion. Other saints, however, like St. Augustine, adopted the more rigid view that only with sacramental baptism could one enter heaven.
01-03-2012, 11:14 AM
Again, the Church teaches that Baptism of Desire can take away original sin and is efficacious for salvation as BOD supplys the principle effect of baptism, namely "the grace which remits sins": "17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized "The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood" 1917 Catholic
01-03-2012, 12:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2012, 12:39 PM by SouthpawLink.)
If there's a contradiction between the necessity of baptism and the possibility of desiring it, then should we not also conclude that there's a contradiction between the necessity of penance and the possibility of desiring it? Consider:
913 Can. 3. If anyone says that those words of the Lord Savior: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained" [John 20:22 f.], are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood from the beginning, but, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, distorts them to an authority for preaching the Gospel: let him be anathema [cf.n. 894 ]. 916 Can. 6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was either instituted by divine law or is necessary for salvation; or says that the manner of secretly confessing to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is alien to the institution and the mandate of Christ, and is a human invention: let him be anathema [cf.n. 899 f.]. According to Our Lord, in order for sins committed after Baptism to be forgiven, they must be confessed (John 20:23), and Trent is clear in stating that this is a divine law and is necessary for salvation. We should also look at canon 4 from Session VII (Denz. 847), which teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and are not superfluous. So, who could argue that it's possible to have sins forgiven by perfect contrition and desire for Penance before the actual reception of the sacrament? Trent does: "The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it" (Sess. XIV, ch.4: Denz. 898.). Similarly, Trent teaches that, "this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it" (Sess. VI, ch. 4: Denz. 796). If it's going to be argued that a desire for baptism contradicts the canons of Trent and John 3:5, then it should also be argued that Sess. XIV, chapter 4 goes against the words of Our Lord ("whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them" - John 20:23) and other statements of that same council, which mention the necessity of Penance for sins committed after baptism. Having sins forgiven through perfect contrition and desire for Penance makes the sacrament superfluous, no?
01-03-2012, 02:01 PM
(01-03-2012, 10:20 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:(01-03-2012, 09:08 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: St. Ambrose actually recorded a case of baptism of desire pertaining to one of his catechumens. Here's what St. Augustine said on the topic: "For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, 'Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven'; and in another place, 'Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.'" (City of God, Book 8, Chapter 7) "The same blessed Cyprian sees no small proof that suffering can sometimes take the place of Baptism, from the [case of] the thief to whom, though he was not baptized, it was over and over I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply what was lacking of Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that because of circumstances of time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism." (De Baptismo)
01-03-2012, 02:46 PM
(01-03-2012, 02:01 PM)Parmandur Wrote:(01-03-2012, 10:20 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:(01-03-2012, 09:08 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: St. Ambrose actually recorded a case of baptism of desire pertaining to one of his catechumens. He later changed his mind on the subject: (12-31-2011, 06:13 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It's curious to notice that, after admitting for the possibility of baptism of desire and blood in his early writings, St. Augustine's final position on baptism was that sacramental baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation.
01-03-2012, 02:48 PM
But Trent still teaches on the efficacy of BoD.
01-03-2012, 10:56 PM
(01-03-2012, 01:52 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:(01-03-2012, 01:01 AM)columb Wrote: You ask me to, "STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;"[/i] when it is the actual "contradictions" (in the plural) that are not being addressed, never mind resolved. I dispute that the desire for Baptism has a salvific efficacy if remaining unfulfilled by means of the actual reception of the sacrament itself. The desire for Baptism can arise from the correct employment of human faith and reason alone; it does not necessarily require supernatural faith in order to have the desire to receive sacramental Baptism. I do indeed acknowledge in point [1] that the desire for Baptism is not a sacrament and therefore there remains only one sacrament of Baptism. Point [2] is that which is commonly held to be the disposition necessary for BoD to be salvific. How one receives the pre-baptismal grace to have supernatural charity (perfect love of God) while still outside the Church has not been explained; (sacramental Baptism being the means by which a soul is incorporated into the Church outside of which no one at all can be saved.) Point [3] seems to be putting the horse before the cart. Supernatural love of God places a soul in the state of sanctifying grace but one must first receive sanctifying grace in order to be capable of possessing supernatural charity. The unbaptized man is yet a natural man and requires the laver of regeneration in order to make him a supernatural man,; one (so to speak) who has died with Christ in Baptism and has put on the new man. Point [4]. Total agreement.. Point [5]. I'm aware of the different types of necessity but it has not been shown that necessity of precept is the necessity proper to the sacrament of Baptism. On the contrary, It has been dogmatically defined that the necessity of means is that necessity which is proper to sacramental Baptism. It's plain to see how the necessity of means does not apply to various other sacraments, e.g, the sacrament of penance which is applicable to those souls only who have already received the sacrament of Baptism and have since fallen into mortal sin. Indeed, the necessity of water does not apply to BoD, this is why I say that it is not salvific, for the Church affirms that, "Unless a man be born again of water etc.." he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. It's worth noting that many Doctors and Fathers equate "the kingdom of God" with the Roman Catholic Church. I may in fact be alone on the issue of pre-baptismal justification but I don't find it being taught de fide anywhere. That is why I don't consider myself a true Feeneyite and can see the contradiction you mention in another post where some place between heaven and hell must be invented to house those who die justified but without Baptism. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|