Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(01-01-2012, 12:56 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-31-2011, 08:19 PM)jordanawef Wrote: You know where it is in Catechism of Trent.  You have rejected it.

Well, here it is - please demonstrate how you get salvation via desire and via accidental death out of this - or admit it says no such thing:

.........Nor, in fact, does that delay hold the associated danger, which was said above to be certainly imminent for children, since, for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the intention as well as the resolution of receiving baptism, and repentance for a life badly spent, would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness , if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.

Ah, down to the “fine points”.  It is true that the Roman Catechism does not explicitly use the words Baptism of Desire nor Baptism of Blood.  The matter would come down to how does the Church interpret or define the meaning of …resolution … and repentance …  would be sufficient for the grace and the righteousness , if some sudden accident should impede them from being able to be washed in the water of salvation.

For myself (and the majority of pre VII Catholics it seems) one would look to how this passage is defined in subsequent approved pre VII catechisms, which were all based on the Roman Catechism (which was written to instruct priests in their preaching and catechesis which presupposes, I’m thinking, that it was intended to be read and understood by someone with formal theological training).

Let’s take a look at the Catechism of SAINT Pius X (certainly not known for a tolerance of modernism or doctrinal mushiness):

http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm#Sacraments
Quote:16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

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.

As a simple lay person without formal theological formation, and whose understanding of doctrine is not much beyond the Baltimore Catechism level, I have to decide where to stand on this particular point:

The definition given by a Supreme Pontiff and a canonized saint (and in many respects an icon of traditional Catholicism;

OR

The definition given by an U.S. priest who allowed himself to remain in a state of excommunication from the Church for almost twenty years and who was reconciled with the Church by a pontiff several here don’t recognize as a valid pope.

I will hasten to add that though I’ve never read Fr. Feeney’s writings I do not doubt his personal sanctity nor his devotion to the Church and I pray that by God’s mercy and grace he is among the saints in heaven.

Still, one needs to decide on one interpretation or the other.  On this point I’m sticking with Saint Pius X.

I’m still wondering if anyone can give an example of a post Trent / pre Vatican II approved catechism that DOES NOT teach BOD/BOB?
Reply
(01-01-2012, 01:42 PM)moneil Wrote: I’m still wondering if anyone can give an example of a post Trent / pre Vatican II approved catechism that DOES NOT teach BOD/BOB?

Here's one (PDF) from 1958
The Penny Catechism

The only thing that it remotely teaches about any desire is................

252. Ought we to have a great desire to receive the Sacraments?

We ought to have a great desire to receive the Sacraments, because they are the chief means of our salvation.

261. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

Baptism is necessary for salvation because Christ has said: 'Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'. (John 3:5)



Reply
After some technical glitches, I finally managed to post the chart with the teaching of theologians on baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

You can find on the other thread here:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33667832

Enjoy!
Reply
(01-01-2012, 06:38 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-01-2012, 01:42 PM)moneil Wrote: I’m still wondering if anyone can give an example of a post Trent / pre Vatican II approved catechism that DOES NOT teach BOD/BOB?

Here's one (PDF) from 1958
The Penny Catechism

The only thing that it remotely teaches about any desire is................

252. Ought we to have a great desire to receive the Sacraments?

We ought to have a great desire to receive the Sacraments, because they are the chief means of our salvation.

261. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

Baptism is necessary for salvation because Christ has said: 'Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'. (John 3:5)

Thank you Stubborn for the citation and link.  Quoting G. K. Chesterton it appears to indeed be a “marvelous compendium of Christian wisdom.” It also appears to be a simple or very basic catechism, perhaps as was used to prepare young children for their First Holy Communion.  With less than 100 pages in a 3-1/2” x 6” format, there are a lot of truths of the Faith it doesn’t contain.

While doing a quick search I ran across yet another catechism, The Douay Catechism of 1649 by Henry Tuberville, D.D. http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Douay_Catechism/index.html
Quote:Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition, or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ.

Q. What if a man die for the faith, before he can be baptized?
A. He is a true martyr, and baptized in his own blood.

Leaving aside the The Roman Catechism (upon which all subsequent catechisms for the laity were based) as it’s English translations does not contain the phrases Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood I must add the above cited The Douay Catechism to my list:

The Catechism of St. Pius X http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm
Quote:16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
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.

The Baltimore Catechism Number 1 http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/balt/balt01.htm
Quote:157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

158. Q. What is Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.


The Baltimore Catechism Number 2 http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc2.htm
Same text and questions numbers as Baltimore Catechism Number 1

The Baltimore Catechism Number 3 http://www.baltimore-catechism.com

Quote:Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

Faith of Our Fathers (Cardinal Gibbons) http://books.google.com/books?id=hr0ZP4bC3mMC&source=gbs_book_other_versions
Pages 310 – 311.

Father Smith Instructs Jackson http://books.google.com/books/about/Father_Smith_Instructs_Jackson.html?id=HdNTggUWV8AC
Page 143

The Faith of Millions … The Credentials of the Catholic Religion by Fr. John A. O’Brien http://books.google.com/books/about/The_faith_of_millions.html?id=O-kj_LncEjAC
Page 154

These catechisms all carry ecclesiastical approbation and one was compiled by a Pope who is also a canonized saint.

The Baltimore Catechism was the de facto standard Catholic school text in the United States from 1885 to the late 1960s.

I don’t know when my copy of Cardinal Gibbon’s catechism (Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ) was printed, but it is the 110th Edition with over two million copies distributed.

Father Smith Instructs Jackson [url] was written by Archbishop John Francis Noll (1875-1956) who had a significant impact on Catholic publishing during his 58 years of priestly ministry. His skill in defending and explaining the Faith was honed during the early 1900s, when he began his mission work to non-Catholics, often attending Ku Klux Klan and other anti-Catholic rallies in order to directly confront the speakers and attendees. Driven by a desire to teach both Catholics and non-Catholics the value of the Faith in a language and format that they could understand, he launched what has become one of the largest Catholic publishing houses in the world, Our Sunday Visitor. In addition to creating a national Catholic newspaper and distributing millions of topical pamphlets on the Faith, he published several books, among which Father Smith Instructs Jackson quickly became a best-seller. After being installed as the fifth bishop of Fort Wayne, he became an esteemed leader among the United States bishops, eventually earning the honorary title of Archbishop as a sign of the Vatican s esteem for his work. (from Amazon).  Over three million copies have been distributed.

The Faith of Millions … The Credentials of the Catholic Religion by Fr. John A. O’Brien was first published in 1938 with 200,000 copies distributed by 1945.  It was reprinted in 27 editions and translated into 10 languages.

I’m still sticking with these.
Reply
(If you haven't read the post before mine, do so!)
(12-31-2011, 03:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

It would follow that the many catechisms and theologians that teach baptism of desire are all guilty of stupidity, carelessness, or deception (or self-deception) in claiming something that is obviously contrary to truth - and then contradicting themselves explicitly!  Doesn't it occur to you, beneath your stubbornness, that you should be a little humble and look more closely to see if it is rather you who are missing something true, even if not so obvious? 

I think that one key thing you are missing is that in a command the words "necessary" or  "unless" do not always bind the law giver to allow no exceptions - and that most often a law is given without explicitly listing the exceptions.  This is true both for man's law and for God's.  God did not list all the exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill".  Exceptions weren't left out because God was unknowing or powerless, but for the good of those to whom the law was given.  In the same way I think that Christ's words "unless a man be born again..." allowed - not by my say-so, but by the consensus of the Church - an unspoken exception in the case of Baptism of Desire. 

You might make the argument  "Since UNLESS in Christ's words means no exceptions,  therefore God MUST provide water baptism, since nothing is impossible to Him".  But this argument does not follow, if UNLESS can allow unspoken exceptions.  The Church (just to start, in theologians and catechisms) DOES SOMETIMES SPEAK the exceptions. They cannot be denied without denying the teaching of the Church.
Reply
(01-02-2012, 07:25 PM)Doce Me Wrote: (If you haven't read the post before mine, do so!)
(12-31-2011, 03:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

It would follow that the many catechisms and theologians that teach baptism of desire are all guilty of stupidity, carelessness, or deception (or self-deception) in claiming something that is obviously contrary to truth - and then contradicting themselves explicitly!  Doesn't it occur to you, beneath your stubbornness, that you should be a little humble and look more closely to see if it is rather you who are missing something true, even if not so obvious? 

I think that one key thing you are missing is that in a command the words "necessary" or  "unless" do not always bind the law giver to allow no exceptions - and that most often a law is given without explicitly listing the exceptions.  This is true both for man's law and for God's.  God did not list all the exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill".  Exceptions weren't left out because God was unknowing or powerless, but for the good of those to whom the law was given.  In the same way I think that Christ's words "unless a man be born again..." allowed - not by my say-so, but by the consensus of the Church - an unspoken exception in the case of Baptism of Desire. 

You might make the argument  "Since UNLESS in Christ's words means no exceptions,  therefore God MUST provide water baptism, since nothing is impossible to Him".  But this argument does not follow, if UNLESS can allow unspoken exceptions.  The Church (just to start, in theologians and catechisms) DOES SOMETIMES SPEAK the exceptions. They cannot be denied without denying the teaching of the Church.

If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" that it contains unspoken exceptions, in the verse being considered there is also linked in with "water" the words "the spirit" conjoined with the word "and."
Therefore if "unless" is permitting unspoken exceptions concerning "water," it must also contain unspoken exceptions concerning "the spirit." No?

Regarding "Thou shalt not kill," the exceptions were already known even before the commandment was explicitly known, otherwise the death penalty for certain crimes and the "Just war" exceptions would have been sinful after the commandment was given. As this indeed was not the case it is obvious that these unspoken exceptions presented no contradiction in OT times and these exceptions can clearly be seen as explicit in the deposit of faith and not in contradiction to the teachings of the apostles.  This is why even those who perceive the contradictions contained in BoD teaching, see no such contradiction in the commandment "thou shalt not kill."
Reply
(01-02-2012, 09:36 PM)columb Wrote:
(01-02-2012, 07:25 PM)Doce Me Wrote: (If you haven't read the post before mine, do so!)
[quote='Stubborn' pid='945775' dateline='1325359935']
For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

It would follow that the many catechisms and theologians that teach baptism of desire are all guilty of stupidity, carelessness, or deception (or self-deception) in claiming something that is obviously contrary to truth - and then contradicting themselves explicitly!  Doesn't it occur to you, beneath your stubbornness, that you should be a little humble and look more closely to see if it is rather you who are missing something true, even if not so obvious? 

I think that one key thing you are missing is that in a command the words "necessary" or  "unless" do not always bind the law giver to allow no exceptions - and that most often a law is given without explicitly listing the exceptions.  This is true both for man's law and for God's.  God did not list all the exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill".  Exceptions weren't left out because God was unknowing or powerless, but for the good of those to whom the law was given.  In the same way I think that Christ's words "unless a man be born again..." allowed - not by my say-so, but by the consensus of the Church - an unspoken exception in the case of Baptism of Desire. 

You might make the argument  "Since UNLESS in Christ's words means no exceptions,  therefore God MUST provide water baptism, since nothing is impossible to Him".  But this argument does not follow, if UNLESS can allow unspoken exceptions.  The Church (just to start, in theologians and catechisms) DOES SOMETIMES SPEAK the exceptions. They cannot be denied without denying the teaching of the Church.
(01-02-2012, 09:36 PM)columb Wrote: If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" that it contains unspoken exceptions, in the verse being considered there is also linked in with "water" the words "the spirit" conjoined with the word "and."
Therefore if "unless" is permitting unspoken exceptions concerning "water," it must also contain unspoken exceptions concerning "the spirit." No?

No!   Because there can be exceptions does not mean that there can be any exception you can think of!  The Holy Ghost or the spirit  (in Sanctifying grace) is given even in baptism of desire, otherwise it would be totally meaningless.  NOT (WATER and SPIRIT)  = (NOT WATER or NOT SPIRIT), and one instance of that is NOT WATER (but do have SPIRIT)

(01-02-2012, 09:36 PM)columb Wrote: Regarding "Thou shalt not kill," the exceptions were already known even before the commandment was explicitly known, otherwise the death penalty for certain crimes and the "Just war" exceptions would have been sinful after the commandment was given. As this indeed was not the case it is obvious that these unspoken exceptions presented no contradiction in OT times and these exceptions can clearly be seen as explicit in the deposit of faith and not in contradiction to the teachings of the apostles.  This is why even those who perceive the contradictions contained in BoD teaching, see no such contradiction in the commandment "thou shalt not kill."

I was trying to make a general point that exceptions are not always explicitly explained, whatever the reason may be.  One reason may be that they are already known.  Another may be that they apply in only the rarest of cases, and that mentioning them would minimize the importance of the main case.  They can be explictly explained only at later times, or when needed (e.g. when a catechumen was martyred).

You can (as you do) think that baptism of desire is false for any number of reasons.  But don't think it is false by this fact alone: that sometimes it is not explicitly explained as an exception.

STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;

(12-31-2011, 03:32 PM)Stubborn Wrote: For the life of me I fail to understand what goes through the mind of any one who can say that "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  . . . .  and. . . . . Baptism of desire is sufficient for salvation, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. are not an obvious contradiction.

By my understanding, what goes through the mind of those Catholics, Saints, and Theologians who say these things is that Christ had in mind the exception of Baptism of Desire, even though He wisely did not speak it.  This being so, THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. These Theologians and other Catholics have the AUTHORITY to say that there is such an exception. When Trent says the Sacrament of Baptism is Necessary, this does NOT mean there is no exception.  When theologians in one place say Baptism is necessary, this does not contradict their saying elsewhere that Baptism of Desire is an exception.
Reply
Quote from Doce Me:
"I was trying to make a general point that exceptions are not always explicitly explained, whatever the reason may be.  One reason may be that they are already known.  Another may be that they apply in only the rarest of cases, and that mentioning them would minimize the importance of the main case.  They can be explicitly explained only at later times, or when needed (e.g. when a catechumen was martyred).

You can (as you do) think that baptism of desire is false for any number of reasons.  But don't think it is false by this fact alone: that sometimes it is not explicitly explained as an exception.

STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;"


Thank you Doce Me.
I was aware that you were generalizing and merely wished to point out that the generalization doesn't work when applied to BoD. However, this point is merely a side issue and indeed the problem with BoD doesn't arise from the fact that there are known legitimate exceptions in other areas.
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 would much preferred you answered the first part of my post which highlighted one such possible contradiction; that being; If what you say be true regarding the word "unless" contained in John 3:5 which you say allows for unspoken exceptions, in the verse there is also linked with the word "water" the words "the spirit" conjoined with the word "and."
Therefore if "unless" is permitting unspoken exceptions concerning "water," it must also contain unspoken exceptions concerning "the spirit." No?

If it has already been stated by a supreme Pontiff that there is but  "one God, one faith, one baptism," beyond which it is not lawful to speculate further, by what authority does one speculate  on or introduce another baptism which has the capability of overriding the necessity of the ONE Baptism which we profess in the credo?

(Pope Pius IX, from Singulari Quadem:
“For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2),we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’[Eph. 4:5];    it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry." 

and to do so against an ex cathedra pronouncement, Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent,Sess. 7, Can. 5; “If anyone says that baptism (the Sacrament) is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

How is one to hold this as de fide while simultaneously holding that the Sacrament of Baptism can in fact be optional/not necessary for some -namely; those who receive BoD-  without incurring the attached anathema?
Reply
columb, you can quote people by putting the word "quote" in brackets [like this] and closing it [/like this].  There is also a "quote" link in the top right of each post.

That should help you reply to specific texts more easily. :)
Reply
(01-03-2012, 01:07 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: columb, you can quote people by putting the word "quote" in brackets [like this] and closing it [/like this].  There is also a "quote" link in the top right of each post.

That should help you reply to specific texts more easily. :)

Thank you. 
That will make life much easier.  :dunce:  :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)