Can this change too

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrift
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adrift

Guest
GerardP said:
Start another topic on Feeney and the Jews if you want. It’s not for this discussion.
“Feeneyism” is not a heresy. You don’t determine what heresy is. When the Church condemns it as a heresy it will be a heresy. The best you can hope for is that it’s an error.
Click to expand...
Is this true? I thought that this was not just speculation and according to the Catechism which states
1258
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
Click to expand...
it is not.
So what is the proof that it can be discarded just like limbo?
Click to expand...
 
Gerard says: no official and infallable church documents back up the position of baptism by blood or desire.

The Bible (an official and infallible church document) says: Jesus tells an unbaptised criminal dying on the cross that his desire has purged (baptised) him from his sins.

Really… who are we going to trust on this issue?
 
promethius95945 said:
Gerard says: no official and infallable church documents back up the position of baptism by blood or desire.

The Bible (an official and infallible church document) says: Jesus tells an unbaptised criminal dying on the cross that his desire has purged (baptised) him from his sins.

Really… who are we going to trust on this issue?
Click to expand...
What a great point. 👍
 
adrift said:
What a great point. 👍
Click to expand...
Actually, was it a great point?

The Biblical text says as follows:
Luke 23:39-43:
Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Click to expand...
I see no evidence from the Bible indicating that the criminal was unbaptised. He may very well have been a baptised Christian. You could make a case either way.
 
adrift said:
Is this true? I thought that this was not just speculation and according to the Catechism which states

it is not.
So what is the proof that it can be discarded just like limbo?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church most certainly does INFALLIBLY teach Baptism, or the desire for Baptism, is sufficient: 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.
(Session 7, Sacraments in General)

… And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration [Baptism], 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.
(Session 6, On Justification, Ch 4)
The same goes for sacraments like Confession (Sess6, Ch 14).

Those who say water Baptism is absolutely required are indeed in grave error and it is heretical because it is contrary to the explicit infallible teaching of the Church.
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
I see no evidence from the Bible indicating that the criminal was unbaptised. He may very well have been a baptised Christian. You could make a case either way.
Click to expand...
although he could have been a baptised Jew (as per john the baptist, etc) since the act which finalized the new covenant (the death of Christ) was not completed, there was no means by which he could have been a baptized christian at that point… (technically speaking)😛
 
promethius95945 said:
Gerard says: no official and infallable church documents back up the position of baptism by blood or desire.

The Bible (an official and infallible church document) says: Jesus tells an unbaptised criminal dying on the cross that his desire has purged (baptised) him from his sins.

Really… who are we going to trust on this issue?
Click to expand...
Its not really relevent to this thread, but I dont think the bible says whether or not the thief on the cross was baptized. It is assumed by most that he was not, but Scripture is silent on the issue.
 
promethius95945 said:
Gerard says: no official and infallable church documents back up the position of baptism by blood or desire.

The Bible (an official and infallible church document) says: Jesus tells an unbaptised criminal dying on the cross that his desire has purged (baptised) him from his sins.

Really… who are we going to trust on this issue?
Click to expand...
Baptism wasn’t made obligatory as a sacrament and therefore not necessary when St. Dismus was on the Cross.

From the Trent Catechism:

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising 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.
 
Baptism by desire is part of the deposit of faith

I suggest a reading of this document from the Holy Office concerning the Fr. Feeney affair:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixe.html

As an aside, the fact that the greater the actual sins you have the greater the magnitude of torments in Hell is also part of the unchangeable deposit of faith (“Limbo” is part of this doctrine as it would be the state of no torments due to no actual sin; the speculation arises as to who definitively has died and is in such state–in fact, such a speculation exists because it is also part of the deposit that the grace of Baptism can be conferred extra-sacramentally).
 
Catholic_Dude said:
The Catholic Church most certainly does INFALLIBLY teach Baptism, or the desire for Baptism, is sufficient: 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.
(Session 7, Sacraments in General)

… And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration [Baptism], 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.
(Session 6, On Justification, Ch 4)
The same goes for sacraments like Confession (Sess6, Ch 14).

Those who say water Baptism is absolutely required are indeed in grave error and it is heretical because it is contrary to the explicit infallible teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
You’re engaging in the “Spirit of Trent” 🙂 on that one. That’s as valid as the “Spirit of Vatican II”

Trent was not addressing Baptism of Desire.

Charles Coulombe (made a papal knight by JPII) addresses this:

**But doesn’t the Council of Trent teach Baptism of Desire? **
Not at all. It declares that the “Votum” (vow, NOT mere desire) to baptised can justify one. But it does not say that one can be saved that way. Justification is the state of being pleasing to God, of having one’s sins forgiven—such as you and I are when we step out of the confessional. But that is certainly not the same as being saved. **The proof of this is that Trent anathematises anyone who would “make a metaphor” of Our Lord’s **words, “Unless a man be born again…” That means we must take that phrase----a phrase which does not permit exceptions—literally. Certainly, no one will claim that Baptism of Desire is anything more than a metaphor. What is forgotten here is that Baptism does not just forgive sins. It directly applies the merits of Christ’s death to the individual soul; it makes of the baptised person a “new creature” (no longer a member of fallen humanity, which of its nature cannot enter into heaven, he becomes a member of redeemed humanity, which can); it places an indelible mark on the soul; it grafts him into the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ; and it infuses knowledge of the Truth in a sub- or superintellectual manner—and all of these are necessary to enter into Heaven. An individual who is in the state of justification but has not received these other effects, is like one of the just of the Old Testament. Their sins were forgiven them; but they could not ascend to Heaven precisely because they were sons of Adam. They had to be united to Christ, because “no one ascends to the Father except through me.” This union was accomplished for them by Christ when He “descended into hell,” as we say in the Apostle’s Creed. For those of us in the New Law, that can only happen through Baptism. Of course, it is far easier for us than for the Old Law people, who had no sacramental graces.
Click to expand...
 
I’ll take Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori’s opinion over that person:

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):

"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called ‘of wind’ ‘flaminis’] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ‘flamen’]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon ‘Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato’ and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.’"

As for Baptism of Desire making Christ’s words into a metaphor, it does no such thing. The desire is for the literal water Baptism that Christ speaks of, it is not a metaphorical baptism.
 
GerardP said:
You’re engaging in the “Spirit of Trent” 🙂 on that one. That’s as valid as the “Spirit of Vatican II”

Trent was not addressing Baptism of Desire.

Charles Coulombe (made a papal knight by JPII) addresses this:

**But doesn’t the Council of Trent teach Baptism of Desire? **
Click to expand...
I totally disagree with that and it is in fact nothing more than Feeneyism in disguise. I am not engaging in a “spirit of VII moment”. Trent is making clear that the physical partaking of the Sacraments are not so binding that God’s grace is restricted to them.

The evidence that this is Baptism of Desire is all over the place.
Here is one example from the Catechism of St Pius X that I just found online:
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.”
Code: 
     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.
It is abundantly clear this B of Desire is valid and salvific.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top