Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#81
(11-13-2011, 02:00 PM)aquinasg Wrote: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

This verse does have a reference to baptism, but the word for "water" means "a river" or a great quantity of water. So it also means spiritual water (grace) and does not exclude baptism by desire

Not sure where you came up with that but the interpretation of the Church Fathers disagree. Seems they say that BOD is a metaphorical baptism.

From the Haydock Bible:

John 3: 5. Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. (Witham) --- Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)
Reply
#82
There are many articles on the internet which quote Fathers of the Church who believed in Baptism by Desire. I don't know why it has been said that Augustine alone believed in it. And those Fathers knew about John 3: 5!

Ok, let's break this down. Somebody said that Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus teaches that catechumens can have perfect charity. Let's get the quote on that.

Council of Trent - Session 7 - On Baptism

CANON II.-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.
 

That merely condemns that view which states the "water" only means grace, and that water (instead of say wine or orange juice) itself is not necessary for baptism.

We also have to keep in mind the theological distinction betwe a "necessity of precept" and "necessity of means". The sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of precept, just as Jesus said we cannot have life unless we eat His Body. But were does Trent say that the sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of means? I think it says the opposite

"[T]his translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration,
or a desire for it..." (Sess. VI, ch. IV: Denz. 796
).


There are three places where "or a desire for" is mentioned at Trent, right. The one I quote here is not susceptible to the objection of the MHFM argument that "it means you have to have both the desire and the baptism".
Reply
#83
I don't think I am making Jesu speak "fork-tongued". He often spoke with multiple meanings. Eph. 5:25-26: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word".

Those arguing against Baptism of Desire do not believe that catechumans are part of the Church yet. However, that verse says that Jesus cleanses the CHURCH by the water. Therefore it must be spiritual water, or grace, that this verse speaks of. John 3:5 speaks of both and is therefore open to the possibility of BOD


Let me clarify about Council of Trent - Session 7 - On Baptism CANON II: water cannot be a "necessity of precept" for baptism, because that is nonsensical. Its a necessity of means for the SACRAMENT of baptism. But were has the Church taught that the SACRAMENT of Baptism is a necessity of means unto salvation?
Reply
#84
Stubborn, thank you for your kind reply.

I will try be as brief as possible for such an involved question.

First, keep in mind that the most common cause of heresy is ignorance. People who usually end up stubbornly denying a teaching do so because they simply don't understand the teaching. I am not accusing you of heresy here; I am simply making a point about why many people feel the need to deny the possibility of baptism of desire: they read the Council of Trent, they see an apparent contradiction, and they don't understand what it is saying, so they simply deny the meaning of Trent's reference to a person who vows to be baptized but who dies before that happens.

Make sure that you don't deny it simply because you, personally, don't see how it is possible. 

(11-13-2011, 01:52 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Sixth Session, Capter VII
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified

Of course. Belief in baptism of desire does not exclude this acknowledgment. That you think it does just goes back to what I was saying earlier: denial of Church teaching is usually the result of not understanding it, so zealous Catholics feel the need to put their feet down in the name of defending Truth. The problem with this is that once a person convinces himself that he is simply defending Truth he will hear of nothing else. This is what I am afraid has happened to you.

If this were just a matter of theological opinion, I wouldn't have much to say about it; there would be no use. In fact, I truly don't like having this discussion. It is very complex, becomes quickly emotional, and requires me to have a level of patience that I find very difficult. But as I mentioned in my previous post, baptism of desire carries a note of sententiae fidei proxima, which means that no-one is permitted to doubt it without jeopardizing their attachment to the Church. Denying baptism of desire is a very serious issue, so I caution you to place aside what you perceive to be theological contradictions in the Council of Trent and read what the post-Trent theologians (all of them, not just some of them) who have been charged with the responsibility of telling us what it means have taught about it. We absolutely must--MUST--submit our understanding to what those who have the authority to teach on such matters have taught. That doesn't mean we have to accept contradictions. It simply means we have to accept the possibility that perhaps we are imagining a contradiction where one doesn't exist. Understanding this teaching does not require one to do what the Modernists ask you to do: just accept contradictions without an explanation. Baptism of desire is theologically understandable; it simply requires the will to examine all of the principles at work in the question.

By doing this, I am simply asking you to reflect upon your methodology. If you say these theologians are clearly wrong by appealing to the Council of Trent than you are simply going in a circle and arguing in the way the Protestants argue with the Bible. The good thing about Catholicism is that we don't have to do that. We can use the subsequent teachings of those with authority to teach on matters pertaining to faith and morals to explain what the Church and Her councils mean. You have seen a contradiction, but the theologians charged with interpreting Trent don't see a contradiction because the issue is much broader in scope than simply saying "Water baptism is necessary for salvation." You see that as a cut and dry method that doesn't need any explanation, but, theologically, it much more complex than that.

For example, are you aware that there are at least 4 different kinds of "necessity"? In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia, in providing examples of them, uses baptism as an example:
Catholic Encyclopedia: Necessity Wrote:In theology the notion of necessity is sometimes applied with special meaning. ... Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

Sauvage, George. "Necessity." nn. 5-6. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.

Baptism by water is "necessary", yes; it is not optional, and one cannot use one's free will to "opt" out of it, which is the position the canon condemns: 'no-one can say that it is not necessary.' Instead, Baptism of water is necessary according to a "relative necessity of means", which is a "necessity ... based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end."

Some of these principles are derived from and enunciated by the Angelic Doctor himself, whose work was used as a foundation for the very council we are discussing (the Council of Trent):
St. Thomas Aquinas Wrote:Reply to Objection 2. Although we do not read that they confessed, it may be that they did; for many things were done which were not recorded in writing. Moreover Christ has the power of excellence in the sacraments; so that He could bestow the reality of the sacrament without using the things which belong to the sacrament.

Summa Theologica, Supplementum Tertiae Partis, Question 6, Article 1, Reply to Objection 2.
 

If St. Thomas' writings were used as the foundation of these teachings, and if St. Thomas, himself, acknowledged that Christ could work outside of the outward signs of the sacrament, then clearly the Council of Trent was not contradicting itself on this teaching in the way that you think it might if we accept this teaching.

I am not going to lay out all of the evidence that contradicts the Feenyite view, but it is important when interpreting ecclesiastical documents to have a thorough understanding of the complex theological concepts upon which they are predicated.

St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the necessity of water baptism, yet he, himself, acknowledges that Christ can operate outside of the visible signs of the sacrament.

If you study the purpose of the signs of the sacrament, you will learn that they exist so as to provide us with certainty that we received this or that sacrament. We can never be certain that we have received them until after we've received the visible sign. They are outward signs that the Church requires by divine decree for the sake of providing certainty that we have actually received this or that sacrament.

But, in the same way that one can be pardoned for one's sins with a perfect act of love for God before confession (yet not know that one has), one can receive the grace of Baptism before actually receiving the visible sign of the sacrament (without knowing that one has).

However, the fine distinction that must be kept in mind is that we can never know whether we have received this or that sacrament until we have received the visible sign of the sacrament. In this way, yes, Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Hence, we cannot presume that we have been forgiven for our sins or that we have received the grace of baptism until we have received the sacraments themselves.

In this way, Baptism of water is absolutely necessary: there is no choice to receive it or not to receive it.

However, we know that God can confer the grace of Baptism outside of the visible sign. One is not permitted to then "opt" out of water Baptism, for he can never know that God has actually conferred the grace upon him. He may feel as though he has received the grace, but he cannot know, and must presume he hasn't received it, so he is obliged by the law of the Church to receive Baptism of water immediately. If he dies before he receives the outward sign, we can only hope that his vow to be baptized was animated by perfect charity and that it sufficed to justify his soul, as the Council of Trent indicated that it could.

This is why the 1917 Code of Canon Law legislates that those who die as catechumens are to be buried with baptized Catholics. The Church, infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, would not have bound this law in Heaven if there were absolutely no possibility whatsoever that they had received the grace prior to actual water Baptism. We know from the Church's own law that She, Herself, considers them Catholics. Whether they were animated by the perfect charity necessary to actually receive the reality of the sacrament, however, is known only to God. We can only hope and pray . . .

Quote:Here is yet another teaching from Trent's 6th session:

CHAPTER XIV. (Is speaking about those who are already baptized)
On the fallen, and their restoration. (Note it says their "restoration", not their initiation)

As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery...................Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism;and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance.......


FWIW, I am not seeking to be right, I am seeking the truth. I have found absolute clear consistency in all infallible truths and have found inconsistency and contradictory teachings from the "Ordinary Magisterium"  i.e. Doctors, Theologians and Saints etc (as I have already posted their contradictions) on this subject.

Be careful before claiming that the ordinary magisterium is contradictory. Doubt yourself and your own understanding before you doubt the ordinary magisterium. We are not obliged to submit to the extraordinary magisterium only.

Quote:Chapter IV (Latin)
“Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiirtu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.

Chapter IV (English)
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

For the record, I do not know Latin, but "voto" sure looks like the word "Vow" and not "Desire" to me. So I am of the opinion that there has been a mistranslation of the canons. 

The translation to "desire" rather than "vow" renders the same consequence: they both speak of a person who vows to be baptized, and whose vow is animated by perfect charity, but who dies before receiving the visible sign of the sacrament, which is necessary to be sure that he has received the sacrament. That is what baptism of desire is: a vow, animated by perfect charity, to receive the sacrament as soon as possible. 

Quote: But I do not believe one necessarily needs to know Latin to know that or the desire thereof in the context of the canon makes no sense in light of the Scripture at the end of the canon. This is something (using the context of a sentence) I think most of us learned in the 3rd or 4th grade. Again, if I am not reading it correctly, please correct me. I fail to be able to reason out how one must be born again of water while at the same time stating the mere desire of it suffices - I also cannot understand how anyone can reason that out.

But this gets back to what I said earlier: failing to understand something results in a simple denial of it in the name of maintaining Truth. If what is being taught contradicts what has already been interpreted by the ordinary magisterium, then it must be rejected as opposed to Catholicism, but if the ordinary magisterium is interpreting a teaching of the Church in a way that doesn't contradict previous teaching (and Baptism of desire does not if you understand why water is necessary in the first place), then it must be given assent of faith. It is very, very dangerous and proud to say "it doesn't make sense to me, so it must be wrong" because that is not reacting to a true contradiction; that is saying "I don't understand it so there must be a contradiction." You have to study the broader question here. There are many things you have to understand first before even beginning to examine this question. "What is a sacrament?" "Why do we need them?" "What is a visible sign?" "Why do we need them?" Et cetera.


Quote:I do not recall ever saying he did not go because he was sick, if I did then I was wrong and apologize.

Perhaps you didn't. I know many others say that this was the reason.

Quote:The reason he did not go was because he was afraid of the scandal that would befall the SBC in his absence if he were to leave in the midst of the "Boston Heresy Case". He most likely foresaw them shunting him off into the world of "some place where he would not be heard from" - similar to what they did to that priest in El Paso recently and is the same thing that was perpetrated on many good priests after V2.

A reason, and an arguably strong reason, no doubt, but the fact of the matter is that he was summoned to Rome by the pope himself, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Fr. Feeney taught that it was absolutely necessary to obey the pope in order to remain Catholic, yet he chose to disobey him here. God will judge him justly, I'm sure, but there is simply no more urgent a matter than to respond to the pope's direct order. Obeying a superior is God's will unless it requires you to do something against the Faith. It would have been lamentable for Fr. Feeney to have to leave his post, but leaving his post to answer the summon of the pope is not contrary to the Faith (as would be, say, compromising with Modernism).
Quote:BTW, The Archbishop who was the instrumental cause of the whole "Boston Heresy Case" and everything else against Fr. Feeney  was Archbishop Richard James Cushing. According to wikepedia, At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the document that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge.

Nice guy hey? Gives a little bit of insight as to what Fr. was up against even back then.

Interesting! I will have to look into this.

Pax tecum.

EDITED
Reply
#85
(11-13-2011, 03:16 PM)aquinasg Wrote: Let me clarify about Council of Trent - Session 7 - On Baptism CANON II: water cannot be a "necessity of precept" for baptism, because that is nonsensical. Its a necessity of means for the SACRAMENT of baptism. But were has the Church taught that the SACRAMENT of Baptism is a necessity of means unto salvation?

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Reply
#86
(11-14-2011, 01:13 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Stubborn, thank you for your kind reply.

I will try be as brief as possible for such an involved question.


Thank you very much for your reply - I will think about what you said before I reply..........might be a while before I can reply but I will seriously think and pray about it in the mean time.

Reply
#87
(11-13-2011, 02:06 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-13-2011, 10:03 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: So does this mean that all who were not baptized by water (i.e. the conventional water baptism) are not saved?

Baptism of Desire is not in contradiction with God's aspect of Him being omnipotent. It exists exactly because God is so. God is so powerful that he is able to save those who wish to be saved. These people who desire to be saved are Baptized by their desire to be saved, and therefore be baptized. The are able to be Baptized by their own desire because God knows what is in their hearts and God is so powerful, he can offer them salvation.

Where is Divine Providence in this? Does God not feed the birds of the air when he could easily sustain them without food? Does he not promise that if we seek we will find? If we knock it will be opened? if we ask it will be given to us? Would God deny baptism one who is sincere and in need of Baptism while He feeds the birds?

Why would God make that promise to us at all if when we asked, God only made us believe we were answered when we really weren't?  Why would God make that promise to us at all if when we seeked, we really didn't find but were satisfied that God only led us to believe we found what we were seeking?

If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him? How does BOD agree with this?

I think you get what I'm saying here.

Uhm, about your first paragraph. No, God would not deny one who is sincerely wants to be baptized. Although in His infinite wisdom, and His plan for others, He may will that we not be able to receive Baptism by conventional means. However this does not mean he denies us of baptism. This is possible, precisely because the Baptism of Desire exists. In His great love and wisdom, He gives salvation to those who desire it genuinely. He does not deny baptism to anyone, for one may be baptized by his or her desire when conventional baptism is not available.

Perhaps you ask why God would deny us conventional baptism when we seek it and want it. The point is, desiring to be conventionally baptized is actually the desire to be saved. It boils down to that- our desire to love and be with God. But, as with all things, God may have something better, or different in mind. He has a different plan. He may will that we not get what we want for our own good, He may will for us to receive not what we want instead He gives something better. Perhaps, he may give something we desire but in a different form or in a different time for our own good. However, His will and plan is always infinitely good and wise. So, in the baptism of desire, He may decide that we receive salvation in the extraordinary form. But yet, even though the method is different, He does not deny what he has promised, which is salvation for those who genuinely desire it.

As for your next  paragraphs, I have difficulty in understanding them, but I kind of get your point. Please reply if your questions have not been properly answered or there was a misinterpretation.

Anyway, I answer that God makes us believe because God grants His promises fully to those who are faithful. God does not only make us believe, that it is true, He makes it true, it is up to us to believe or not in His works. Its not a question of "when we really weren't". God fulfills all His promises, it is not that "we really weren't" because we really were. We would find what we really need for God promised it so, he does not "lead us to believe" as if it were a trick or a deception.

As for your last paragraph, I sincerely apologize. I cannot see the relation with your question to the Baptism of Desire. I sincerely ask that you expound and clarify that question so that we may be able to answer it.

I hope I have at least cleared up some things. I urge you, dear Stubborn, to reply if your questions have been inadequately answered or if my answers are in error.

+ Benedicat Nobis Deus +
Reply
#88
(11-14-2011, 08:33 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote:
(11-13-2011, 02:06 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-13-2011, 10:03 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: So does this mean that all who were not baptized by water (i.e. the conventional water baptism) are not saved?

Baptism of Desire is not in contradiction with God's aspect of Him being omnipotent. It exists exactly because God is so. God is so powerful that he is able to save those who wish to be saved. These people who desire to be saved are Baptized by their desire to be saved, and therefore be baptized. The are able to be Baptized by their own desire because God knows what is in their hearts and God is so powerful, he can offer them salvation.

Where is Divine Providence in this? Does God not feed the birds of the air when he could easily sustain them without food? Does he not promise that if we seek we will find? If we knock it will be opened? if we ask it will be given to us? Would God deny baptism one who is sincere and in need of Baptism while He feeds the birds?

Why would God make that promise to us at all if when we asked, God only made us believe we were answered when we really weren't?  Why would God make that promise to us at all if when we seeked, we really didn't find but were satisfied that God only led us to believe we found what we were seeking?

If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him? How does BOD agree with this?

I think you get what I'm saying here.

Uhm, about your first paragraph. No, God would not deny one who is sincerely wants to be baptized. Although in His infinite wisdom, and His plan for others, He may will that we not be able to receive Baptism by conventional means. However this does not mean he denies us of baptism. This is possible, precisely because the Baptism of Desire exists. In His great love and wisdom, He gives salvation to those who desire it genuinely. He does not deny baptism to anyone, for one may be baptized by his or her desire when conventional baptism is not available.

Ok, so no one "get's what I'm saying here"..........I'll try to briefly explain:

I am attempting to show that anyone who sincerely desires to be saved (Note: *not* sincerely desires baptism - I find it all but impossible to believe that folks about to die "unexpectedly" have the desire to be baptized on their mind -  but I can agree that they, while being unbaptized, *can* have the desire to be forgiven and saved) and has not yet been baptized, that God will provide the actual sacrament which He made absolutely mandatory for our salvation. This agrees with the doctrine of  Divine Providence.

I think the YouTube I posted beautifully depicts both the "Desire" as well as the Providence of God, who provided what was desired and absolutely needed. God could have miraculously "wooshed away" Ben Hur's thirst, but that is not how God provides. And it wouldn't matter if it were Luther, Henry VIII or Lady Gaga for that matter - if one sincerely desires what God made an absolute necessity for salvation, then God will provide what they desire - miraculously or not. One way or the other, that person will absolutely get the sacrament in this world if they sincerely desire it - *that* is how the Church teaches us that God *always* works.

Divine Providence, as Saint John Damascene calls it, is "The will of God by which all things are ruled by right reason." It leaves no room for chance or for fate. It is the personal act of God in regard to man. This "act" means what it says, IOW, God will provide the sacrament.

Could God grant salvation without the requirement that He Himself  bound all of us too? Yes, He certainly could.
Is the necessity of the sacrament for salvation taught by Trent and other authoritative teachings of the Church? Yes.
Is salvation without the sacrament taught anywhere in Trent or other authoritative teachings of the Church? No, it is not.
Is salvation without the sacrament taught by saints etc. Yes.
Do the saints etc. who taught the typical interpretation of BOD contradict the necessity of the sacrament for salvation taught by Trent and other authoritative teachings of the Church? Yes.

In a nutshell, if BOD means that God will provide the sacrament for all who sincerely desire it before they die, then I believe in BOD. Beyond that, the typical "salvation through desire and without the sacrament" definition of BOD contradicts both Scripture and infallible teachings and I cannot believe it.


Reply
#89
I apologize for the late response.

I think we must realize that BOD is still the sacrament of baptism, only not the conventional method of receiving it. It is not salvation through desire without the sacrament. It is salvation through the sacrament of baptism given to us by virtue of our desire to receive it (or we can say "our desire to be saved").

One who desires to be saved, desires all the requirements for salvation. Therefore, we can say that those who desire to be saved and know that to be saved one must be baptized and other requirements, that person desires to be baptized. The chances that one desires to be saved without desiring the sacrament itself are slim, and occur  when the person is totally ignorant of either the sacrament's existence or its necessity or perhaps, due to some unavoidable circumstance are not aware of it. If someone truly desires to be saved, then he must believe that he must be baptized, thus he desires it. One who desires to be saved without desiring to receive the sacrament, is not desiring to be saved at all for he rejects the necessity of baptism.

If you are satisfied with an explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia, then you should read its article on baptism. Yet, let me point out something in its article which will help us understand the issue at hand:

"Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism... The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto)."

+ Benedicat Nobis Deus +
Reply
#90
(11-23-2011, 11:57 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: I apologize for the late response.

I think we must realize that BOD is still the sacrament of baptism, only not the conventional method of receiving it. It is not salvation through desire without the sacrament. It is salvation through the sacrament of baptism given to us by virtue of our desire to receive it (or we can say "our desire to be saved").

Thanks for replying - no biggie about a late response!  :)

Any way,  BOD is not a sacrament............

St. Thomas Aquinas obviously believed that baptism of desire and blood are not sacraments at all -  he also writes that  it is the *sacrament* of baptism that is necessary for salvation, here he writes:

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.[" (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, a. 11.)

Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation… Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that without baptism there is no salvation for men." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 68, a. 1.)


(11-23-2011, 11:57 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: One who desires to be saved, desires all the requirements for salvation. Therefore, we can say that those who desire to be saved and know that to be saved one must be baptized and other requirements, that person desires to be baptized. The chances that one desires to be saved without desiring the sacrament itself are slim, and occur  when the person is totally ignorant of either the sacrament's existence or its necessity or perhaps, due to some unavoidable circumstance are not aware of it. If someone truly desires to be saved, then he must believe that he must be baptized, thus he desires it. One who desires to be saved without desiring to receive the sacrament, is not desiring to be saved at all for he rejects the necessity of baptism.

This is one opinion of many. It is not a teaching of the Church that is anywhere defined, nor is there any scriptural basis for this opinion. Again, it is one of many speculative opinions - that's all it is. I've heard opinions on BOD being able to save everyone from the unborn to Judas -  from a vague desire to a solemn desire - it just depends on how far one chooses to stretch the idea of what BOD is. 



(11-23-2011, 11:57 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: ................Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

I completely agree. In order to enter the kingdom of God, one must be "born again....." ie baptized. Christ made no exceptions to this law.



(11-23-2011, 11:57 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it [trent] declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation.


I agree completely that Trent defined baptism is positively necessary for salvation because justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration. Up to this point, Trent is complete agreement with the law Christ established.


(11-23-2011, 11:57 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

Suddenly Trent adds a proviso to the law? I say no, absolutely not.

I am reading it with proper context in mind that says one must not only be sacramentally baptized, they must also have  the proper  intent.
For example, were one to get baptized in danger of death with no intention of converting if they live - or perhaps they get baptized in order to become heir to a fortune or marry into some royalty or some other such reason similar to the "shotgun wedding", that baptism would be rendered sinful and it would not justify the person.


Look at it this way, IF Trent was saying what most folks want them to say, they would have no way suffixed the canon with:  as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

To me it does not make even one shred of sense for Trent to say that the desire of baptism in a pinch, is just as good as the sacrament because Our Lord said that unless we receive the sacrament we cannot see the kingdom of God...................how on earth does that make any sense to anybody I don't know.


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)