Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
columb Wrote: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.

According to Pope St. Pius V, catechumens (i.e. the unbaptized) can have perfect charity, which brings with it the remission of sins:

"Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a 'pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned' [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. -- Condemned" (Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 31, 1 October 1567: Denz. 1031).
Reply
(01-04-2012, 12:38 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
columb Wrote: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.

According to Pope St. Pius V, catechumens (i.e. the unbaptized) can have perfect charity, which brings with it the remission of sins:

"Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a 'pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned' [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. -- Condemned" (Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 31, 1 October 1567: Denz. 1031).

Columb,  such a catechumen would be infused with Sanctifying Grace by God, who Himself baptizes the man, making him a supernatural man, on account of a desire that God knows (and indeed put) in the man's heart.  It is not just  "any old desire", and it must be accompanied by a roadblock to the Sacrament that God knows and permits.

To quote the Baltimore Catechism on Sanctifying Grace:

Baltimore Catechism Wrote:111. What is sanctifying grace?

Sanctifying grace is that grace which confers on our souls a new life, that is, a sharing in the life of God Himself.

But to as many as received him he gave the power of becoming sons of God. (John 1:12)

112. What are the chief effects of sanctifying grace?

The chief effects of sanctifying grace are:

    it makes us holy and pleasing to God;
    it makes us adopted children of God;
    it makes us temples of the Holy Ghost;
    it gives us the right to heaven.

One is not a temple of the Holy Ghost, or pleasing to God, unless he has supernatural charity, and forgiveness of sins. These things come together. Sanctifying grace is what justifies a man and is equivalent to  "grace and righteousness",  which is referenced in this quote:
Catechism of the Council of Trent Wrote: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; 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.

Grace and righteousness are the effects of  (or equivalent to) sanctifying grace, which "gives us the right to heaven".  This is something Catholic children are taught.  Being given the right to heaven doesn't mean we merit heaven of ourselves, but that God makes us His adopted children, and  would not damn us.

Sanctifying grace can be lost, and then by God's help regained.  Receiving either Baptism of Desire, or the Sacrament, doesn't guarantee we will be saved. Or rather it only guarantees it if we are in the state of grace when we die.

In the quote from the Catechism of Trent, it is clear that the concern for a baby that is mentioned is death and hell (limbo).  The concern for an adult must be the same thing, death and hell (limbo).  The risk for the baby is greater because if the Sacrament is not received, there is nothing before death that can be done.  The risk for the man is slightly less, because for the short time before death "grace and righteousness", and salvation, is a possibility, by baptism of desire.
Reply
(01-04-2012, 03:53 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Columb,  such a catechumen would be infused with Sanctifying Grace by God, who Himself baptizes the man, making him a supernatural man, on account of a desire that God knows (and indeed put) in the man's heart.  It is not just  "any old desire", and it must be accompanied by a roadblock to the Sacrament that God knows and permits.

Thanks Doce Me, for plainly stating the all important ingredient -  so important in fact, that without it, BOD would not exist.

God plays no games, He does not make a Law, command our adherence to the Law, send the Apostles out on foot all over the world, command them to teach this Law to the whole human race in every corner of the world, then accompany that Law with a roadblock so as to make adherence to the Law impossible to adhere to - but ONLY for any person who sincerely desires it. That's a pretty darn and downright scary thought.

I mean you no disrespect, but this "permitted roadblock" comment completely perverts the doctrine of Divine Providence.









Reply
(01-03-2012, 12:30 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: 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?


No, we should not consider it the same thing - The Sacrament of Penance is only for those already baptized.


(01-03-2012, 12:30 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: 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.

All your quotes above are teachings in regards the Sacrament of Penance - IOW, the teachings of Trent here ONLY apply to one who already baptized.


(01-03-2012, 12:30 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Having sins forgiven through perfect contrition and desire for Penance makes the sacrament superfluous, no?

Having sins committed forgiven via perfect contrition is a teaching of the Church, does not make the Sacrament superfluous and is not in question here.

Having Original Sin forgiven via BOD then being rewarded salvation is what I question - it is something Trent never taught.

Reply
"Sacraments received through desire


Although the sacrament of penance is “necessary for salvation”, it may be received unto salvation “in desire” as well as “actually”.



Trent: “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 [saltem in voto], 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.” (Denz 807)



Trent: “The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein.” (Denz. 898) "
Reply
Stubborn,
Your problem then is not that Trent proclaimed two sacraments necessary for salvation (and not superfluous) and allowed one to be desired, but that the council itself did not explicitly explain how the other could be desired.  If Trent -- not the Church in general -- didn't teach it, you won't believe it, not even if the very same Tridentine Fathers teach BoD in a catechism two years later and if the Supreme Pontiff who closed the council definitively teaches it a year after that.  Because Trent didn't teach an (detailed) exception to the actual reception of Baptism, as it did with Penance, you argue that any exception offered makes Baptism "superfluous" and "optional," even though no one's arguing that (i.e. Baptism is superfluous and optional).

Where you get the distinction between sanctifying grace/justification/remission of sins and eternal life -- which allows you to deny that the Rom. Cat. and Ex Omn. Aff. teach BoD -- I don't know.  Trent did not envision different states of justification, one for the unbaptized and one for the baptized, which is a distinction you tried to make earlier in the thread ("that passage -- Sess. VI, ch.16 -- concerns only those already baptized").

You make a distinction which the Church does not make (different states of justification), and it appears that you reject a distinction which the Church actually does make (relative vs. absolute necessity).

If I have not described your position accurately, then please feel free to correct me.
Reply
(01-04-2012, 07:02 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-04-2012, 03:53 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Columb,  such a catechumen would be infused with Sanctifying Grace by God, who Himself baptizes the man, making him a supernatural man, on account of a desire that God knows (and indeed put) in the man's heart.  It is not just  "any old desire", and it must be accompanied by a roadblock to the Sacrament that God knows and permits.


I mean you no disrespect, but this "permitted roadblock" comment completely perverts the doctrine of Divine Providence.

Then the Catechism of the Council of Trent is perverting the doctrine of Divine Providence when it says "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters". It is speaking of impossibility BEFORE DEATH for adults, as it is does for babies.  If dying in grace and righteousness WITHOUT BAPTISM still sends the man to hell, than what is the point of  the Catechism talking about grace and righteousness at all?  If they don't matter as to salvation, then how is the risk for an adult less than the risk for a baby?

Taking your statement  concerning "perverting the doctrine of Divine Providence" to an extreme, God couldn't permit ANYTHING to EVER get in the way of obeying even the letter of any command.  Anyone who misses Mass  really is entirely to blame himself, because God doesn't EVER permit roadblocks or human impossibilities. Why should He?  He's God!   Saying God sometimes permits such things perverts the doctrine of Divine Providence, according to you.

No, God doesn't always work miracles, He allows the usual course of  His Divine Providence to go on in nature. That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. Matt 5:45 Sometimes rain (or the lack thereof) can make things impossible for man - and God  permits this!

When God causes supernatural things, no rain or sun can make these things impossible, and they are absolutely necessary.  But natural, physical. things are only relatively necessary; God sometimes allows physical impossibilities for these.  This is what the Catechism and theologians and saints who support Baptism of Desire believe - do you seriously want to accuse all these of "perverting Divine providence"??

(01-04-2012, 07:02 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
God .. does not make a Law, ... then (1) accompany that Law with a roadblock so as to make adherence to the Law impossible to adhere to - but (2) ONLY for any person who sincerely desires it.

(1) It's not right to say the command to receive baptism is "accompanied with"  a roadblock, any more than it is to say the command to go to Mass is "accompanied with" a roadblock. The actual carrying out of these commands can have a roadblock for any particular instance and individual, but it not something "built into" the command. 

You are denying the possibility of relative necessity, where God has every right to allow a roadblock for man.
We say God CAN overcome a roadblock but He CAN also permit it, making the necessity relative, and choosing sometimes to do DIRECTLY what water does in the Sacrament.  You are restricting God!

(2) "... roadblock so as to make adherence to the Law impossible to adhere to - but ONLY for any person who sincerely desires it."

This makes no sense to me.  Any accident making receiving baptism impossible would apply just as well to those who don't desire it.  God knows if someone is heading to receive baptism without faith and without the desire He demands; such a one doesn't get Baptism of Desire.  God doesn't choose those who desire baptism and then make it impossible in particular for them. He permits impossibility just as He allows rain to fall on the just and unjust - as He so chooses!

It's not a bunch of nonsense to say "anyone could have a car accident on the way to be baptized".  It's God's normal ordering of providence. Unfortunate physical things can happen, and God doesn't always prevent them. But He acts with mercy in response to them.

(01-04-2012, 07:02 AM)Stubborn Wrote: God plays no games, He does not make a Law, command our adherence to the Law, send the Apostles out on foot all over the world, command them to teach this Law to the whole human race in every corner of the world, then accompany that Law with a roadblock so as to make adherence to the Law impossible to adhere to - but ONLY for any person who sincerely desires it. That's a pretty darn and downright scary thought.

Commanding a thing and then permitting a roadblock for someone trying to obey the command doesn't make the command a game.  Desiring baptism only is valuable because it is desiring THE SACRAMENT.  The SACRAMENT is commanded to all because it gives Sanctifying Grace, but also because it makes us SURE that we have RECEIVED it, that we have OBEYED God's command, AND because it makes us members of the Church, and able to receive the other sacraments.  Baptism of Desire is something we can't be sure of, it is God's prerogative of mercy to grant salvation to those whom He knows have done their UTMOST to receive the SACRAMENT . The command to receive the Sacrament remains a command until death, until it is carried out.  Baptism of desire is not  "another option".  It is God's prerogative not man's option. All that is commanded for man is to obey; but it is God's choice what to do if man fails.  It is His choice to provide an exception if He wills.
Don't deny God's prerogatives.

It is also God's prerogative to use the words "Unless a man..." without specifying explicit exceptions. This is something man can do, and it is something Christ the God-man can do - having infinite power and knowledge doesn't take away this choice from Christ.  The Church always says Baptism is necessary, you or we can point this out in many, many, places.  But the Church also allows exceptions, it allows necessity to be relative.  The exception does not need to be stated each time; it is not denying Baptism of Desire to not mention it.

Don't deny God's prerogatives.
Reply
(01-04-2012, 11:39 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(01-04-2012, 07:02 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-04-2012, 03:53 AM)Doce Me Wrote: Columb,  such a catechumen would be infused with Sanctifying Grace by God, who Himself baptizes the man, making him a supernatural man, on account of a desire that God knows (and indeed put) in the man's heart.  It is not just  "any old desire", and it must be accompanied by a roadblock to the Sacrament that God knows and permits.


I mean you no disrespect, but this "permitted roadblock" comment completely perverts the doctrine of Divine Providence.

Then the Catechism of the Council of Trent is perverting the doctrine of Divine Providence when it says "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters". It is speaking of impossibility BEFORE DEATH for adults, as it is does for babies.  If dying in grace and righteousness WITHOUT BAPTISM still sends the man to hell, than what is the point of  the Catechism talking about grace and righteousness at all?  If they don't matter as to salvation, then how is the risk for an adult less than the risk for a baby?

YOU are the ONLY one speaking about death for adults - well, you and BOD supporters overall - because death is never even implied in the Catechism of the Council of Trent's paragraph. Where does the catechism say impossibility BEFORE DEATH?

Answer - NOWHERE!

If you read what is written vs what you want it to say, you will see that the catechism echoes Trent and is in fact NOT rewarding salvation to one unbaptized - it is you who are doing that - please read what is written.

(01-04-2012, 11:39 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Taking your statement  concerning "perverting the doctrine of Divine Providence" to an extreme, God couldn't permit ANYTHING to EVER get in the way of obeying even the letter of any command.  Anyone who misses Mass  really is entirely to blame himself, because God doesn't EVER permit roadblocks or human impossibilities. Why should He?  He's God!   Saying God sometimes permits such things perverts the doctrine of Divine Providence, according to you.

You said that God permitted a road block to the Sacrament - this roadblock is what makes it impossible to receive the actual Sacrament. This road block rewards salvation via the desire for the Sacrament because the roadblock made receiving the Sacrament impossible. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

First off, when God sends us a stumbling or roadblock, He does so to test us, to see if we will remain vigilant in our endevour for salvation or take the wide, easy road. When God sees we remain vigilant, He rewards us that which we seek. So if one sincerely desires the Sacrament, Divine Providence teaches us that person will receive that which he seeks - For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened..............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?

Second, if God permits roadblocks to the sacrament so as to reward salvation without the Sacrament, that is a teaching of your own, certainly not a teaching of the Church. FWIW, if God goes through the effort of making it impossible to get the sacrament, then rewards salvation based on a sincere desire - why wouldn't God already provide what is certainly needed ie baptism?

Reply
Trent: “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 [saltem in voto], 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.” (Denz 807)



Trent: “The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein.” (Denz. 898)
Reply
(01-09-2012, 12:00 AM)Old Salt Wrote: Trent: “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 [saltem in voto], 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.” (Denz 807)


Trent: “The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein.” (Denz. 898)


No one is disputing that forgiveness from a perfect act of contrition *can* occur and the above quotes are talking about one who is already baptized - for no one can partake of the sacrament of penance - or any other sacrament if they have not been sacramentally baptized.

Trent: "Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow"

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)