Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
#91
(11-23-2011, 01:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: 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.

I need to add..............

Aside from the fact that Trent was defining the Sacrament of Baptism, *not* the desire of it, I also want to add that Trent never mentioned the oh sooooooo important, "unforeseen accident" that sooooooooo many folks make absolutely relevant to the whole "salvation via BOD" without regard to the absolute reality that: 1) every accident and death is unforeseen by baptized and unbaptized alike and, 2) no accident or death is unforeseen by God.

Where did this whole "unforeseen accident" business come from? - certainly not from the Trent everyone seems to reference as necessary to support the "doctrine" of salvation via BOD.

It's like I said, if BOD means that God will provide the sacrament for all who sincerely desire it before they die, then I believe in BOD.

Reply
#92
(11-23-2011, 06:31 PM)Stubborn Wrote: ..............
Where did this whole "unforeseen accident" business come from? - certainly not from the Trent everyone seems to reference as necessary to support the "doctrine" of salvation via BOD.

Maybe from here:
"Catechism of the Council of Trent" Wrote:    The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death . . . On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; [b]should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.[/b]

I have only occasionally been checking this thread, but I thought I'd chime in with this. This seems to answer your question, even if you go on to critique the Catechism...
Reply
#93
Dear Stubborn, as a final reply to this discussion let us examine the words of St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter:

"As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." 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. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

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." (Part III Summa Theologica, Q 66, A11).

Also, let me claify some errors with my statement that "BOD is a sacrament". I apologize for that. Here is a statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"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."

I hope these clarify the confusion.

Despite the debate on the existence of BOD and the words of Trent one thing is very clear and cannot be denied. That is, God will never condemn those who geniuely desire to be saved and he will not damn those who do not want to be damned. (Of course these people must show this through true contrition, charity, etc.). Remember, no sin is beyond the mercy of God, and he will grant that mercy to whom ever desires it. The only people who are damned or are in hell are those who, by their own will, chose to be damned and forever be separated from God.

I for one cannot believe that God would damn someone who really desires to be with him.

† Benedicat Nobis Deus †
Reply
#94
(11-24-2011, 12:04 AM)Doce Me Wrote:
(11-23-2011, 06:31 PM)Stubborn Wrote: ..............
Where did this whole "unforeseen accident" business come from? - certainly not from the Trent everyone seems to reference as necessary to support the "doctrine" of salvation via BOD.

Maybe from here:
"Catechism of the Council of Trent" Wrote:    The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death . . . On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; [b]should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.[/b]

I have only occasionally been checking this thread, but I thought I'd chime in with this. This seems to answer your question, even if you go on to critique the Catechism...

I have seen that in the past - 3 things...........................
1) This "accident", foreseen or not, was never mentioned or even hinted about at the Council of Trent - considering it is a pivotal character of BOD that proponents claim Tent defined or taught, it seems a bit odd no?

2) This "unforeseen accident" the catechism speaks about does not avail anyone to salvation, only grace and righteousness..............which we can all agree on. The Catechism does not say nor imply the accident caused a death - which one must do before they can be rewarded salvation.

3) Once the person recovers from his "unforeseen accident", where does the catechism state that he no longer needs to be Sacramentally baptized? 


Reply
#95
(11-24-2011, 09:28 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: Dear Stubborn, as a final reply to this discussion let us examine the words of St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter:

"As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." 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. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

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." (Part III Summa Theologica, Q 66, A11).

Also, let me claify some errors with my statement that "BOD is a sacrament". I apologize for that. Here is a statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"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."

I hope these clarify the confusion.

The above quote contradicts the articles from St. Thomas' that I posted. Also, the Good Thief died before the Sacrament of Baptism was established by Our Lord, who did so sometime just prior to His Ascension.


(11-24-2011, 09:28 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: Despite the debate on the existence of BOD and the words of Trent one thing is very clear and cannot be denied. That is, God will never condemn those who geniuely desire to be saved and he will not damn those who do not want to be damned. (Of course these people must show this through true contrition, charity, etc.). Remember, no sin is beyond the mercy of God, and he will grant that mercy to whom ever desires it. The only people who are damned or are in hell are those who, by their own will, chose to be damned and forever be separated from God.

I for one cannot believe that God would damn someone who really desires to be with him.

† Benedicat Nobis Deus †

Agreed.
Reply
#96
(11-29-2011, 04:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-24-2011, 09:28 AM)LorenzoMdeVera Wrote: Dear Stubborn, as a final reply to this discussion let us examine the words of St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter:

"As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." 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. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

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." (Part III Summa Theologica, Q 66, A11).

Also, let me claify some errors with my statement that "BOD is a sacrament". I apologize for that. Here is a statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"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."

I hope these clarify the confusion.

The above quote contradicts the articles from St. Thomas' that I posted. Also, the Good Thief died before the Sacrament of Baptism was established by Our Lord, who did so sometime just prior to His Ascension.

Is the text below where you believe St. Thomas contradicts himself?  He does not.
Quote: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.)

St. Thomas AGREES with the first part of the objection, but DISAGREES with its conclusion.
He says something that all  reasonable supporters of  baptism of desire say:  BOD is NOT a sacrament.   On that we agree!
But he also says that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of   blood CAN in a way be reckoned baptism, NOT in being Sacraments (in the nature of a sign)  BUT STILL in the main baptismal effect (sanctifying grace).

In the next quote I'll include a little more of the text

Quote:Article 1. Whether all are bound to receive Baptism? (pt 3, Q 68, A 1)

from "I answer that":

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.)

Article 2  Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? (immediately following article 1!)

from "I answer that":
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

I strongly recommend you read the whole article:  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2, including the objections and their answers.  They cover much of what is being discussed here.

It is intellectually unsound to accuse St. Thomas of contradicting himself from one article to the next.  He says we are bound to receive the sacrament of baptism, because WE are bound.  He says that because of what God knows in our heart HE is not bound to save us only by the sacrament of which He is the author.

Disagree with St. Thomas if you will (rarely wise), but don't scorn him
Reply
#97
(11-29-2011, 11:59 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Disagree with St. Thomas if you will (rarely wise), but don't scorn him

I am not scorning St. Thomas!

Thanks for this reply, I appreciate it very much and will spend some time thinking about it before I reply.

FWIW, St. Thomas also refers to the "unforeseen accident" but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism which is never mentioned at Trent.
Reply
#98
(11-30-2011, 07:55 AM)Stubborn Wrote: I am not scorning St. Thomas!

Good!  Sorry if I misinterpreted you.
Reply
#99
Well, whether St. Thomas contradicted himself or not can be debated IMO - I can understand how that particular passage from the suma can be looked at from either position but I will already agree that he did not contradict himself for the sake of ending that particular issue.

I can however state that it does contradict Trent's canon stating the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Again, to me it does not make even one shred of sense for Trent to say what BODers claim it says, namely, that the desire of baptism, 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.

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.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)