Baptism of Desire

[jim28]

But that one case is there. While it must be pointed out that this did occur prior to the resurrection, it was after Jesus sanctified the waters of Baptism with his own presence in the Jordan and established that as a Sacrament. The very first sermon preached by an apostle included this Sacrament. It is not something the developed later. While it is possible that it the sacrament of baptism was injected into the head of St. Peter at Pentacost, it is far more likely that Jesus taught it in the prior three years, especially in light of His teaching to Nicodemus. No, baptism was already established at the time the thief died and he was able to obtain a baptism of desire.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

The Thief died under the Old Law and was not obligated to become Baptized!!!

 

[jim28]

That’s exactly what it is Fr. Boyd - people are following the teachings of the quite obviously confused Jesuit Fr. Feeney. He denied Church teaching on this matter and has (apparently) convinced a number of people to follow his private interpretation.

If he denied Church Teaching, he would not have been allowed to come back into the Church without relinquishing his belief (belief in the Church’s Dogma). He never did give up his belief either. Which proves that he was not wrong to believe this.
He was excommunicated originally for disobedience to the Rome and not because of his belief.

 

[jim28]

Holy Mother Church does not hold up for veneration persons who are in hell, but those who are in heaven. The argument from the liturgy should really end the debate.

Since the Roman Martyrology is not infallible, and the Canonizations are, all this tells me is that these wonderful martyrs were in fact Water Baptized before death.
This does nothing for the debate.

 

[japhy]

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

And how does the Council define the “law of Baptism”? Is it possible (conceivable) that the “law of Baptism” includes reception of the grace of baptism via “baptism by desire”?

 

[japhy]

Since the Roman Martyrology is not infallible, and the Canonizations are, all this tells me is that these wonderful martyrs were in fact Water Baptized before death. This does nothing for the debate.

That’s utterly convenient for you.

 

[jim28]

I want to post something here and see if anyone wants to explain Baptism of Desire in light of this Dogmatic Teaching.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of
Chalcedon, 451: “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who
give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4‐8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS
SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

You can’t separate the effect (spirit of sanctification and blood of redemption) from the Sacrament itself (water baptism). Baptism of Desire would indeed give someone the effect without the actual Sacrament. As anyone can see all three must be present for the Sacrament to take place.

 

[pnewton]

Since the Roman Martyrology is not infallible, and the Canonizations are, all this tells me is that these wonderful martyrs were in fact Water Baptized before death.
This does nothing for the debate.

Occam’s Razor examines the choice.

1. The Roman Martyrology of everyone who went through heaven through the baptism of blood is wrong, or
2. jim28 is wrong.

Is this really difficult for anyone to figure out?

 

[jim28]

Occam’s Razor examines the choice.

1. The Roman Martyrology of everyone who went through heaven through the baptism of blood is wrong, or
2. jim28 is wrong.

Is this really difficult for anyone to figure out?

I’m sorry that your lack of proof is really making you post things such as this. I don’t claim to be right on my own account, I only follow the Dogmas of the Church.
Without this dogma there is no real reason to be Catholic. Why be Catholic if it’s not completely necessary. Don’t tell me it is because it has the fullness of truth (although true, that is not enough reason to convert someone). If you can be saved in any other religion, why even be Catholic since it’s rules are so rigorous.
Why save a baby in the womb from abortion if you can save it a big risk of dying in mortal sin and then not making it to heaven. It doesn’t make sense.
No one can define the boundaries of BOD. Just about everyone who believes this false doctrine believes something different about it. This is because there is no Dogmatic Definition defining it.
It’s plain you really want this dogma to mean something more than it does.
Just show me something infallible that disproves the fact that every human creature needs water baptism and actual membership in the Church to be saved.
And if you can respond to my last post about Pope St. Leo the Great please do.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry that your lack of proof is really making you post things such as this

I do not know everything. The Church is such a vast resource of information that none can be an expert on everything, even it they believe they can. I am not the Holy Father, as you are not. He is Pope Benedict XVI. What I did was show a way that one can eliminate obviously wrong ideas by a simple tool called Occam’s Razor.

And if you can respond to my last post about Pope St. Leo the Great please do.While I am not obligated to do so, I will answer this post. First, let us ignore all the capitals, underlining and bolding. Everyone who surfs around the net knows these are elements used by cults and extremists to deceive and obscure the plain meaning of passages. The passage is not about baptism (water is mention only three times) but about the redemption of the blood of Jesus, which is mentioned eight times. Baptism of desire is not even addressed. The water of baptism is tied to the blood of Jesus and they are inseparably linked. However this does not require a physical linkage at all times. How do I know? We do not pour the precious blood into the baptismal font. You may do this at your sect, but it is not a traditional Catholic practice.

 

[thistle]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

 

[thistle]

bump

 

[japhy]

thistle, jim is banned, so unless there’s another non-BoD’er out there, I think this thread is done for now.

 

[thistle]

thistle, jim is banned, so unless there’s another non-BoD’er out there, I think this thread is done for now.

Okay I hadn’t noticed. This other poster (aball1035) was asking about baptism of desire and so I directed him to this thread as he started another one with similar questions. I’ll leave it to him if he wants to jump in or not.

 

[AlanF]

Sorry to jump in, but let’s see what Cardinal Ratzinger has to say on the subject.

With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox.

(Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)​

Source​

What’s that I heard in the OP? “Un-catholic position”?

 

[pnewton]

Sorry to jump in, but let’s see what Cardinal Ratzinger has to say on the subject.

I tried to find this quote, because when I was a Protestant I found how easy it is to proof-text and take out of context. All I found was in linked in handful of Feeneyite sites. Do you know if there is any original source document so the context can be examined?

 

[AlanF]

I tried to find this quote, because when I was a Protestant I found how easy it is to proof-text and take out of context. All I found was in linked in handful of Feeneyite sites. Do you know if there is any original source document so the context can be examined?

I suppose you’d have to find “Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben”, which I assume is a book becuse the quote is apparently from page 13. Judging by the title it looks like you’d also have to learn german…

Whatever the context I think the quote makes it clear that it is not heretical to deny Baptism of Blood/Desire. It’s a nice teaching and it can give us some more hope but it’s by no means certain, it’s a bit like Limbo, and we shouldn’t rely on it IMO.

I’ve found a bit more of it here:

With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox. It is rather the obligation of those who hold the “Nouvelle theologie” to put the better case that revelation and tradition are not static monuments enshrouded in time, but both evolve and develop as Christ continues to reveal himself in the experience of his people. As such this living tradition, with the world as its rightful interlocutor, penetrates more deeply into the mysteries in each succeeding generation as it progresses forward in time to the fullness of revelation.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Communio is a well-read periodical that is translated into many languages, including English. Here is a complete list of articles by Cardinal Ratzinger published in Communio, from

ratzingerfanclub.com/Ratzinger_Online.html#communio

“Funeral Homily for Msgr. Luigi Giussani” 31, no. 4 (2004): 685–687. .pdf format]
Introduction to Christianity: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow 31, no. 3 (2004): 481–495. .pdf format].
Thoughts on the Place of Marian Doctrine and Piety in Faith and Theology as a Whole 30, no. 1 (2003): 147-160. .pdf format]
The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. 25, no. 3 (1998): 480-504. .pdf format]
Interreligious Dialogue and Jewish-Christian Relations 25, no. 1 (1998): 29-41. .pdf format]
The Holy Spirit as Communio: Concerning the Relationship of Pneumatology and Spirituality in Augustine. 25, no. 2 (1998): 324-339 RT. .pdf format]
“Truth and Freedom.” 23, no. 1 (1996): 16-35.
“The New Covenant: A Theology of Covenant in the New Testament.” 22, no. 4 (1995): 635-51.
“Christian Universalism: On Two Collections of Papers by Hans Urs von Balthasar.” 22, no. 3 (1995): 545-57 RT.
“God in Pope John Paul II’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope.” 22, no. 1 (1995): 107-12.
“Christian Faith as ‘the Way’: An Introduction to Veritatis Splendor.” 21, no. 2 (1994): 199-207.
“The Meaning of Sunday.” 21, no. 1 (1994): 5-26.
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Optimism of the Redeemed.” 20, no. 3 (1993): 469-84.
“Conscience in Time.” 19, no. 4 (1992): 647-57 RT.
Communio: A Program. 19, no. 3 (1992), 436-49. .pdf format]
“Biblical Foundations of Priesthood.” 17, no. 4 (1990): 617-27 NC.
“Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology.” 17, no. 3 (1990): 439-54 RT.
“Jesus Christ Today.” 17, no. 1 (1990): 68-87.
“Peace and Justice in Crisis: The Task of Religion.” 16, no. 4 (1989): 540-51.
“Man Between Reproduction and Creation.” 16, no. 2 (1989): 197-211.
“‘You are Full of Grace’: Elements of Biblical Devotion to Mary.” 16, no. 1 (1989): 54-68.
“Homily at the Funeral Liturgy for Hans Urs von Balthasar.” 15, no. 4 (1988): 512-16 NC.
“Cardinal Frings’s Speeches During the Second Vatican Council: Apropos of A. Muggeridge’s The Desolate City.” 15, no. 1 (1988): 131-47 NC.
“Freedom and Liberation: The Anthropological Vision of the Instruction Libertatis Conscientia.” 14, no. 1 (1987): 55-72.
“Liturgy and Sacred Music.” 13, no. 4 (1986): 377-91 NC.
“Church and Economy.” 13, no. 3 (1986): 199-204.
“Interpretation-Contemplation-Action.” 13, no. 2 (1986): 139-55.
“On Hope.” 12, no. 1 (1985): 71-84.
“Faith, Philosophy and Theology.” 11, no. 4 (1984): 350-63.
“Luther and the Unity of the Churches: An Interview with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.” 11, no. 3 (1984): 210-26.
“Problems in Catechesis Today: An Interview with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.” 11, no. 2 (1984): 145-56.
“Sources and Transmission of the Faith.” 10, no. 1 (1983): 17-34.
“Technological Security as a Problem of Social Ethics.” 5, no. 3 (1982): 238-46.
“The Church and Scientific Theology.” 7, no. 4 (1980): 332-42.

Were is the alleged article? I know some German, but I have no idea what Pimmelkopfgelauben means.

 

[mattkubes]

Communio is a well-read periodical that is translated into many languages, including English. Here is a complete list of articles by Cardinal Ratzinger published in Communio

And here is the list right from Communio’s site which includes one or two that are not in that list. Still, the evidence for that article really isn’t looking too good…

 

[thistle]

I have posted this in the other thread too.

Everyone should ignore the alleged article and extract from
“Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben”. My best friend is German and I asked him what this means. Somebody is clearly being nasty and disgusting because it means “The faith (belief) of a dickhead”.

 

[Catholic_Martyr]

Baptism of desire is actually against the infallible Magisterium. Please read my new blog for some of the details.

willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/02/no-salvation-outside-church-not-even-by.html